Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Port of London (Dock Charges) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Seasalter and Ham) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FIREARMS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British gunmakers are placed in a very unfavourable position in relation to their foreign competitors owing to
wholesale evasions of the provisions of the Gun Barrel Proof Act, 1868; that great numbers of finished arms are entering this country by parcels post in addition to partly finished arms imported by sea; and whether, seeing that such arms are not included in the Returns issued by the Board of Trade, he will take steps to ensure that such elements of inaccuracy should be removed from the information so necessary to British manufacturers to enable them to meet foreign competition?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): I have no reason to think that any considerable importation of firearms is taking place without licence, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any instances of which he may have knowledge.

Mr. HANNON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that representations have already been made to his Department on this subject and that correspondence was sent a long time ago, but there has been no reply?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the representations, but not of the latter point. What has happened is that when representations have been made, we have asked for any evidence or any material relating to the matter, and we have never been able to get it.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

Mr. WHITELEY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of the trade between this country and Russia during the years 1920, 1921, and 1922; and whether he can state the amount of grain, timber, and oil received from Russia during the same periods?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer contains tables of figures, and, if the hon. Member will allow me, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total values of the trade of the United Kingdom with Russia during the years 1921 and 1922 were as follows:

(a) Total imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Russia:



£


1921
2,694,674


1922
8,176,002

(b) Total exports from the United Kingdom consigned to Russia:


United Kingdom produce and manufactures—



£


1921
2,181,007


1922
3,678,525


Foreign and Colonial merchandise—



£


1921
1,210,283


1922
1,038,473


Total exports—



£


1921
3,391,290


1922
4,716,998


The values of grain, timber, and petroleum imported into the United Kingdom, consigned from Russia, during the same years were as follows:



1921.
1922.



£
£


Grain
—
4,805


Timber
800,041
2,505,764


Petroleum
82,822
254,492


The classification of trade during 1920 did not distinguish separately the trade with Russia as now constituted, the particulars prepared relating to Russia, inclusive of territories now subject to other Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIAN ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Mr. COLLISON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total loss, if any, sustained on the Australian lead and zinc contracts from the 9th April, 1918, to the end of the financial year 1921–22?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware of any Australian lead contract. With regard to the Government contract for the purchase of Australian zinc concentrates, I would refer the hon. Member to pages 209 to 213 of the Accounts and Balance Sheets of Trading or Commercial Services conducted by Government Departments for the year 1921–22, House of Commons Paper, No. 92 of 1923, which contain the information asked for in the question.

Mr. COLLISON: Will it give the total loss sustained on this Australian contract?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It gives all the information down to date. It is quite impossible to say what will be the results of a contract, which must depend from time to time upon the price of spelter. This is the best information I can impart.

Mr. COLLISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House information similar to that given 18 months ago, when it was said the loss sustained was £500,000?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The audited accounts down to date contain the best information that the hon. Member can get.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SEAMEN (SERVICE TERMINATED ABROAD).

Mr. PETO: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that where a British ship is transferred or disposed of, or the services of a seaman terminated otherwise, at a port out of His Majesty's Dominions, adequate provision must be made for his maintenance and for his return home to a proper return port, and that in the case of a seaman whose service terminates similarly at a port abroad, but within His Majesty's Dominions, he is entitled to no provision of this kind, be will consider, in conjunction with legislation he has in view, the desirability of provision being made that seamen whose service terminates abroad, whether within or without His Majesty's Dominions, in the manner stated shall be entitled to maintenance passage home, and wages until arrival home at a proper return port; and whether, masters not being seamen within the terms of the Merchant Shipping Acts, he will make similar provision in their case also?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It would not be practicable to deal with this matter in legislation to give effect to an international convention, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind when next a general Merchant Shipping Bill is being prepared.

DUTY FREE TOBACCO (PRICES).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the
excessive prices charged for tobacco by the masters of ships to members of their crews, although such tobacco is allowed out of bond duty free; whether he can state the result of the representations made on this point to shipowners and shipmasters last year; and whether it is proposed to take any action, by Regulation or otherwise, to prevent this?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Complaints were made last year that excessive prices are charged for the supply of tobacco on board ship to members of the crews, but only in one case were particulars of the alleged excessive charges given, and in that case the prices charged have been reduced. Further inquiries showed that in general seamen are able to obtain tobacco on board ship at prices considerably below the prices charged on shore. The Board of Trade have no power to regulate the prices charged for tobacco on board ship, but if the hon. Member can furnish me with particulars of any case in which excessive prices are in fact charged, I shall be pleased to go into the matter.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair, when these people get the tobacco duty free, that the consumer should have no advantage but should be charged more?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think certainly the price should be cheaper in those circumstances. If the hon. Member has any case where he thinks the price charged is excessive, I will certainly go into it, but I have no statutory power.

DESERTIONS (UNITED STATES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, during the past three months, over 1,000 British seamen have been induced to break their contracts while in American waters in order to serve on American ships, whereby serious inconvenience has been caused to British shipping; will he ascertain how this was effected, having regard to the stringent immigration regulations enforced by the United States with regard to British immigrants; and what action the British Government have taken in the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There has been an increase this year in the number of desertions from British ships in
America, which is normally very considerable, but it is not possible to say what was the cause in each case.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that one of the reasons for the large number of desertions this year is the fact that an obnoxious agreement has been entered into between the shipowners and a particular organisation, to which the men seriously object, and they are clearing out in America, in consequence?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, I do not think there is the faintest foundation for that suggestion.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me—I know something about seamen, and he does not?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the person responsible for the Mercantile Marine Department, I know something about the matter too, and I repeat the statement that I have no reason to believe there is any truth in that suggestion.

Mr. SHINWELL: rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Arthur Shirley Benn.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware if any American Governments have ever refused to carry out the requests of British Consuls to arrest and put on board sailors who are on the articles of ships and who have deserted?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any reason why the desertions are taking place?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given his own reason.

CREWS EFFECTS (INSURANCE).

Mr. PETO: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that seamen practically never insure their effects and are consequently liable to a serious loss in the event of shipwreck, he will consider the inauguration of a general insurance scheme whereby this risk will be universally covered by shipowners and the appropriate amount of compensation paid in all cases to officers and men in the merchant service?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What my hon. Friend suggests is in effect a compulsory compensation or indemnity scheme, and would require legislation, which I do not think it would be practicable to introduce at the present time.

Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the cost to the shipowners of such an insurance would be trivial if distributed over all ships?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have often thought that there is a great deal to be said for a general scheme of insurance of this kind, but this is a very difficult time in which to introduce such a scheme.

Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman explore the avenues of negotiation with the shipping companies before he contemplates legislation in this respect?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Before I contemplate any legislation I explore all avenues.

LOSS OF S.S. "TREVESSA."

Captain Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of his Department to hold a Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the s.s. "Trevessa" at Cardiff, to which port the majority of the crew belong?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A public announcement will be made as soon as it is possible to decide at what port the inquiry into the loss of the "Trevessa" is to be held. The convenience of witnesses is always borne in mind in settling the place of inquiry.

ARAB SEAMEN.

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the increasing employment in British ships of Arab seamen, as well as natives of West Africa and West Indies, many of whom, on arrival at a port in the United Kingdom, are discharged, resulting in the foundation of large and very undesirable colonies, particularly in Cardiff, Glasgow, and Liverpool; and whether he will give consideration to the desirability of these men being signed on under the regulations governing the
engagement of lascars, thus ensuring their being returned to the country of their origin?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I was not aware that the employment on British ships of Arabs and other native seamen was increasing. This question, which is one of great difficulty, has been under consideration for some time, and certain steps have been taken, for instance, Arabs engaged at Aden are now signed on lascar articles, and some Colonies have passed legislation placing on the ship the obligation to repatriate native seamen engaged in the Colony. It has to be remembered that many of these natives are British subjects and some are now domiciled in this country.

Viscount CURZON: What possible reason can there be for discriminating as between Arabs, and why are they not all on the same footing? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the very serious riot amongst the Arab community of Cardiff only last week-end resulting in several casualties?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes. The reason for differentiating between the Arabs is that some of them were British subjects, entitled to the rights of British subjects, and others were not.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the Arabs at Aden are British subjects?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, that is true, but those are specially dealt with under an Ordinance of the Indian Government. It is a very long matter to deal with by question and answer. You have to go into the whole question of the legislation which is passed in order to deal with this matter, and you cannot deal with it by any single regulation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a great deal of unemployment among white seamen in our ports, and that it is very irritating to them to see black crews being continually shipped?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly, and that is why, in consultation with the Home Office, for the last two years, we have been taking every possible step to meet the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. WHITELEY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Reparation Claims Department to ask applicants to renew their claims for compensation, as it is understood that many of the original applications cannot be traced?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware of any cases where applications made to the Reparation Claims Department cannot be traced in that Department, but if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any such case I will have it looked into.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Mrs. Rhoda Taylor, deceased, who resided at 62, Kirby Street, Mexborough, lost her life on 26th September, 1917, in very distressing circumstances as a result of a German Zeppelin air raid in that district, and that although repeated applications have been made for compensation for loss of life and expenses incurred, namely, medical attendance, funeral expenses, etc., no decision was reached until a few days ago, when the application was rejected; and will he institute inquiries into this and similar cases to ensure that all cases of real hardship shall receive sympathetic treatment?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Since the right hon. Gentleman is not announcing the terms of the answer, can he say if there is any possibility of this case being reconsidered?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will read the answer. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have made inquiries with regard to Mr. Taylor's claim in respect of the death of his wife. I would point out that, under the terms of reference, the competence of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action is limited to consideration of claims which come within the terms of Annex 1 of Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles. Dependency by a claimant upon the deceased person at the date
of death is a condition precedent to the foundation of a valid claim under the Annex in respect of the death of a civilian. Mr. Taylor has stated that his wife's occupation was that of housewife and that her income was nil, and, in the circumstances, the claim is one in which the Commission were unable to make any award.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the loss in this case was a real loss and the damage to the home real damage; and since the husband had to employ some other person to whom wages had to be paid, over and above meeting the medical expenses and the expenses of the funeral, should not these facts have been considered when the claim was dealt with?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The loss of a wife, whatever the circumstances may be, is a very serious one, but the Commission are bound to act in accordance with the Regulations laid down by the Treaty of Versailles.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Commissioners are acting strictly in accordance with the amount of money at their disposal; and if so, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the situation should be changed in that respect and a much larger sum paid?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am afraid the hon. Member must address that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have to carry out the rulings of the Commission.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of money received by this country from the Reparations Commission; what proportion has been set, aside to meet the claims of applicants who incurred losses due to damage by enemy air raids; how many individual cases have been dealt with; how many cases are still waiting to be heard; and how long does he think it will take to dispose of all outstanding claims?

Mr. T. SMITH: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many claims for compensation for damage done as a result of enemy air raids on Goole have been received; how many have been dealt with; how many have been refused; what is the total amount of money paid up to
date; and, if any claims are outstanding, the approximate date they are likely to be disposed of?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I regret that it is not possible, without detailed examination of all the records, to separate claims in respect of air raid damage from claims due to other causes arising out of the War.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in an answer given the other day it was stated that no fewer than 12,000 claims await settlement; and cannot some special measures be invoked to expedite settlements?

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many complaints from people who write to the Department and whose letters are not even acknowledged?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not know of any such cases; if the hon. Gentleman will give me a case of any letter which has not been acknowledged, I will certainly take charge of it. The Department cannot, of course, make any payment, except in accordance with the rulings of the Commissioners. With regard to the question of delay, I think the cases to which the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock) refers are outlying claims at present before the Commission. It is for the Commissioners to decide in which of these cases they will make an award of compensation, but there is no delay in bringing the facts before the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ETABLISHMENTS COMMITTEE.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the date of the Report of Lord Weir's Committee; and when the Army Council propose to take it into consideration?

Mr. PRINGLE: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War which recommendations of Lord Weir's Committee have been adopted and what savings will be thereby effected; and which recommendations have been rejected and what savings would have been effected if these recommendations had been accepted?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Captain A. Evans) on the 12th July.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider publishing or making a statement to the House concerning those parts of the Report of Lord Weir's Committee which, while not giving information on questions of national security, contain recommendations of economies in administration, especially in view of the fact that it was not considered against the public interest to publish the similar recommendations as to economy of the Geddes Committee?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, Sir; as indicated in previous replies, it is not possible to consider issuing a statement on the Report until the Report itself has been fully considered.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that he answered certain suggestions that were made on the Army Estimates by saying that they would be dealt with by the Weir Committee, and does he not think it is due to this House that those points should be made known to the House?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the Report itself is not published, there will be a statement dealing with the Report?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The decisions of the Army Council will obviously be made known to this House, and ample opportunity for criticism will then arise. As to the publication of the recommendations, that is not a departmental matter, but as it was a Treasury Committee it is for the Prime Minister to decide what method he may eventually adopt.

ARMY COUNCIL (FINANCE MEMBER).

Major - General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the establishment of the Department of the Finance Member in June, 1914, and at the present time; and what the cost of the Department was in the year 1913–14 and in the past financial year, respectively?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): The figures are as follow:


Numbers employed:



June, 1914 … … …
570


Now … … … …
877


Provision in Estimates:



1913–14 … … …
£133,000


1922–23 … … …
£330,000

MALTA DEFENCE FORCES.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how much the Malta defence forces cost; and what proportion of this is borne by the island authorities?

Mr. GWYNNE: The total provision for Malta under all heads of Army Estimates, 1923–24, exclusive of pension charges, is approximately £850,000. No direct contribution towards this cost is made by the island authorities, but, as usual in such cases, the troops occupy certain Colonial lands and buildings without paying rent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PROCURATORS FISCAL AND SHERIFF CLERKS.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 25.
asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland the result of recent negotiations with the procurators fiscal and sheriff clerks in Scotland; and whether the Treasury and the Scottish Office are prepared to accept the scheme suggested by these officials?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 26.
asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if any arrangement has yet been reached with regard to a revision of the pay and conditions of service of the procurators fiscal now in employment and of those to be appointed in the future?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): I am not yet in a position to state the result of the recent negotiations. The negotiating committees are consulting their constituents, and I am hopeful that a settlement will shortly be reached.

Mr. GRAHAM: Can my hon. and learned Friend indicate any date in the immediate future by which these negotiations might be completed, in view of the very great delay that has taken place?

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether his office made it clear to the negotiating parties that the extra fees charged were to be devoted to additional salary and bonus to the procurators fiscal?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: As I understand the matter, the proposals which were discussed between the representatives of the Treasury and the Scottish Office and the executive representing the officials have not yet been laid before the associations of those officials, but I understand they will be laid before them at an early date, and I am hopeful that a settlement will be arrived at before long.
With regard to the supplementary question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), I regret that I, personally, was incorrect last week in stating that the amount of bonus paid since the fees were raised has very largely exceeded the amount gained by the Treasury as a result of the increased fees. The amount paid in bonus for the year 1922–23 does just exceed the increase of fees (£33,473), but this includes the bonus paid to procurators fiscal and their staffs (£11,930). The Sheriff Courts and Commissary Office bonus amounts to £22,553.
The amount paid in bonus since bonus was first paid very largely exceeds the revenue derived from the increase of fees. Counting Sheriff Clerk service and Commissary Office only, the bonus payments for that period are nearly four times as great as the increased yield of fees. Bonus payments amount to £129,691, and the increase of fees to £33,473. With regard to procurator-fiscal service, the bonus payments since 1917 are £66,292.

FRESHWATER FISH.

Mr. HARDIE: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the increased consumption of tinned fish in the Highlands of Scotland, and consequent danger to public health, he will take steps to make it possible for the local inhabitants to get a chance to purchase the freshwater fish from their local rivers and lochs, at present held privately for sport?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have no statistics as to the consumption
of tinned fish in Scotland or in any particular districts, and I do not know on what evidence the hon. Member bases his suggestion that under existing safeguards tinned fish is dangerous to public health. The sale of freshwater fish taken from rivers and lochs would seem to be a transaction in which I have no power to interfere.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of the fact that there are certain places, and I can give him one now—Morvern, near Oban—where the rivers and lochs are, without exaggeration, full of fish, and yet people have to eat tinned salmon that comes four or five thousand miles; and is he not aware of the fact that there have been four cases of poisoning? Does he not remember that other cases of poisoning took place not long ago?

Captain ELLIOT: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the case of Loch Maree—

Mr. HARDIE: No; that was paste.

Captain ELLIOT: As I say, the effect of transactions with regard to the purchase of freshwater fish is a matter over which I have no power. I do not know what steps the hon. Member suggests that I should take.

GAME AND HEATHER BURNING.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health what are the intentions of his Department with reference to the Report of the Game and Heather Burning Committee; and if he is aware that continual complaints are being made of the destruction of farmers' crops by deer and other game?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend has the Report of the Committee in view, but looking to the pressure upon the time of Parliament he does not see any prospect of legislation on the subject this Session. My Noble Friend has no reason to suppose that complaints are general or that serious damage is being caused by deer or other game.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

Major PAGET: Is it not a fact that a very large proportion of the rates are paid by the shooting tenants in Scotland, and that the rates are very largely dependent on the proper burning of heather and preservation of game in Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put that question on the Paper.

AGRICULTURE DEMONSTRATION AREA, FIFE.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether any arrangements have been made by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, in consultation with the Fife Education Authority, for the acquisition of land in Fife for the purpose of providing a farm institute and experimental farm; how far the negotiations have progressed; and what share of the expenditure will be provided by the Board of Agriculture?

Captain ELLIOT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, I should explain that a deputation of the Fife Education Authority recently discussed with the Board of Agriculture proposals for the provision of a demonstration and experimental area in that county, and I understand that the matter is at present under the consideration of the Authority. As to the third part, no application has been made to the Board for expenditure for this purpose from their funds

Mr. MILLAR: Is it not in the power of the Board of Agriculture to come forward and get land, and are they not prepared to do that?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but that is not the point. The question is being discussed as to whether actual purchase of a farm is the best method in which to carry out the experimental farm, or whether it would not be better to enter into some arrangement with respect to some existing farm without purchasing it outright.

Mr. MILLAR: Are the Board of Agriculture prepared to come forward and assist in this matter?

Captain ELLIOT: The matter is still under discussion, and I have no doubt the Board will take the proper steps at the proper time.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that arrangements similar to those were carried out by the late John Spier, of Newton Farm?

Captain ELLIOT: That is just the answer I have given to the hon. and learned Member. I have said that we were considering whether it was not possible to enter into arrangements for an existing farm rather than purchase one outright.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. MILLAR: 30.
asked the Under Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the procedure adopted in the preparation of joint schemes for the provision of small holdings by the Board and the Forestry Commissioners on land acquired by the Commissioners, the number and acreage of the schemes which have been adjusted, the number of holdings so far provided, and the number of these schemes which had been framed before the setting up of the Forestry Commissioners?

Captain ELLIOT: Under Section 3 of the Forestry Act, 1919, the Forestry Commission consult the Board before acquiring land for afforestation and again before selling land not required for afforestation. Similarly under Section 6 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, the Board consult the Forestry Commission before selling land not required for small holdings. Following these consultations both Departments consider whether and in what manner joint schemes can be developed. Five joint schemes have been adjusted with an acreage of 22,497 acres. The number of holdings so far provided and occupied is, as stated in the reply which I gave on the 3rd July, 40 new holdings and 11 enlargements. Of these one new holding is on lands managed by the Commission, the remainder are on lands sold, feued or leased by the Board to the Commission. In addition five new holdings and two enlargements will be formed on lands feued by the Board to the Commission and nine new holdings will be formed on lands feued to the Board by the Commission. None of the schemes can be said to have been adjusted before the constitution of the Forestry Commission though one was under consideration before then.

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. D. MILLAR: 31.
asked the Under Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health
if he can state whether the Scottish Office have received any representations from school management committees or other bodies in Scotland against the proposed amendment of Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, as regards the powers of school management committees contained in Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill; and, if so, whether he can state the names of these committees or other bodies and the special grounds of objection submitted by them?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The Department have received no representations from school management committees or other bodies in reference to Clause 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. MILLAR: Seeing now that the Government have accepted or incorporated an Amendment dealing with this matter, will they secure information as to the views of the school management committees and the other bodies before this Bill gets a Second Reading?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it the intention of the Government to take this Bill after 11 o'clock at night, in view of the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has received intimation from all quarters of the House that there are a great many points that require very careful consideration?

Mr. A. SHAW: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that the Members of this House have received a very important communication from the school management committees, which shows that this is a burning question, that ought not to be taken late at night?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have a further question—

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is about the Business of the House in connection with this matter, it should be taken at the end of questions.

Sir H. CRAIK: No, Sir: what I want to know is whether, when this Bill was introduced by the Secretary for Scotland, it did not contain the very contentious Clauses now mentioned, and, whether, in view of that fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us adequate time for discussion?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: In answer to the first supplementary question, the Government accepted this Clause which was moved in the House of Lords by the Duke of Athol who brought it forward at the unanimous request of the education authorities in Scotland. My Noble Friend said in the House of Lords that if serious opposition manifested itself in another place—that is this House of Commons—to the Clause that the whole question would have to be reconsidered and I personally regret there should be this opposition to the Clause, but I think it is quite clear, in view of the opposition manifested in various quarters, it will not be possible for the Government to proceed with it.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the education authorities who have made representations in favour of this Clause, are precisely the people whose authority will be very greatly increased, while that of the school management committees will be correspondingly decreased?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: In education matters, surely the education authorities represent the people of Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. BROTHERTON: 38.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many widows who lost sons in the late War, and have been receiving pensions, are now receiving notice from the Pensions Department informing them that the amounts are to be reduced, in some cases by 4s., 5s., 7s., and more per week; and, as many of these widows are over 60 years of age and unable to find employment, thereby causing much suffering and hardship, can he, within the Regulations, continue to maintain payments, without reductions, to such persons?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): The hon. Member presumably refers to the review now proceeding of certain pensions based on preWar dependence. No reductions of pension would be made in any case unless it is perfectly clear, on reinvestigation, that the current pension is in excess of the amount which should have been granted
on the facts of the case. I fear that it is not possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, but I may say that if in any such case the pensioner is in pecuniary need and incapable of self-support, application for an increased pension may be made on that ground, and is at once dealt with sympathetically.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Lieut. - Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has observed the increasing delays within the last few months in the answering of calls by exchanges, more especially after 7 p.m.; and what is the cause of such delays?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A close and systematic watch is kept on the speed of answer in telephone exchanges, and the records for the last six months show a general improvement in regard to both day and night services. In London, however, the speed of answer recently has been somewhat slower at night at some of the exchanges, and is the subject of investigation. If my hon. and gallant Friend will specify any particular exchange or exchanges he has in mind, I shall be pleased to have inquiry made and to acquaint him with the result.

Mr. SEXTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the real cause of the delay after 7 p.m. is the language used after that hour?

SORTERS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the starting wage of those who were temporary sorters in the Post Office prior to the War, but who, on the termination of hostilities, successfully competed for staff appointments in the Post Office, sorter class; what number are now employed; and does the scope of the Southborough Committee embrace the question of adequacy, or otherwise, of the starting pay and present pay of the foregoing section of the sorter class?

Sir ARTHUR LEVER: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the hardships of some of the ex-service men who obtained appointments in the Post
Office, sorter class, who have been placed on the starting wage of 30s., plus bonus, applicable to men 21 years of age; and whether he will allow their cases to be inquired into and reported on by the Southborough Committee?

Captain HUDSON: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the successful candidates for staff appointments in the Post Office sorter class were started at a wage of 30s., plus bonus, and that this is not a sufficient salary for a married man, he can see his way to grant some increase?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to refer the hon. Members to my reply to similar questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall) and the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Linfield) on the 12th instant.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it possible for a man to live on this miserable wage of 30s. a week?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE WIRELESS CHAIN.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office has purchased 800 acres of land near Rugby for a high-power wireless station as a link in the Imperial wireless chain; if so, how much public money is to be spent on the site; and whether any provision has been made for the construction of stations in the Dominions, Colonies, and India with which the Post Office will communicate?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The cost of the site, including compensation for disturbance, will be about £50,000. Provision has been made by the Governments of Australia, South Africa and Canada for the erection of stations for communication with this country, but, so far as I am aware, no definite arrangements have been made in India and New Zealand. In some at least of these cases, express provision has been or will be made for the stations to communicate with stations of the Imperial system generally. But the question with what distant stations the new Government station here shall communicate is at present a subject of negotiation.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any approximate date as to the possible opening of this station; and also what the power is likely to be?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot give a date, and as to the second part of the question, I should like notice.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this means a partnership between the State and Marconi, with a division of the traffic?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The agreement is still under negotiation. I do not think I had better attempt to state the terms that are being negotiated.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Why are 800 acres required for this station?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Because I am advised that a large site is required for the station which it is intended to erect immediately, and for possible additions.

Mr. BECKER: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General the name of the company which has applied for a licence to build a high-powered wireless station in this country in connection with the Empire wireless chain; will this company have the same chances of obtaining a licence as the Marconi Company or will a certain preference be shown to the latter company owing to their having held previous licences?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The company in question is the Eastern Telegraph Company. It will have the same chances of obtaining a licence as the Marconi Company, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned. The question of corresponding stations in India or the Dominions would be one for the Government concerned.

Mr. BECKER: Is it possible for two companies at the same time to work a high-powered station?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (CROWN AGENTS ADVANCES).

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether, considering that the British Government is not responsible for the Palestine Loan and that the loan has been made without the consent of the Palestinian people, he can state how and when the £1,365,000 already advanced by the British Government is to be paid?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No loan has yet been issued, nor have advances been made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of Palestine. The sum to which the hon. and gallant Baronet refers was advanced by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, and will be repaid from the proceeds of the Palestine Loan when issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION (CROWN COLONIES).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what railways in West Africa during the last 30 years have been built Departmentally and by private contract?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Accra-Akwapim line in the Gold Coast is the only railway in British West Africa that was built by a contractor. I have not sufficient information to say if any of the French West African railways were built by contract.

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before any definite work is undertaken Departmentally, he will obtain an estimate of the cost signed by the Crown agents or their consulting enginers and, before executing such work, ascertain whether public contractors can undertake the same work at the same or at a lower figure with substantial guarantees for the fulfilment of the contract?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of yesterday to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. Gould): As for the concluding portion, the question of the advisability of executing a work by contract is always considered when the work is one of any importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Mr. HURD: 42.
asked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he has received from the cider makers an explanation of their failure to give Members of this House, as well as the general public, any benefit from the abolition of the cider duty; and when that benefit will be received?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: In reply to the hon. Member, the cider manufacturers have made a reduction in the price of cider in casks, of which the Members of the House have received a proportional benefit, the charge per half-pint glass now being 3d. As regards bottled cider, the reduction has been so slight, yielding only a fraction of a penny, that we have been unable to make use of it in the sale of single bottles.

Mr. HURD: Does that mean that the cider manufacturers make a reduction, and the Kitchen Committee does not?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: What I said was that the reduction was so slight that we are unable to reduce the price.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NEWNHAM AND GIRTON COLLEGES (ENTRANTS.)

Mr. EDE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the entrants to Newnham and Girton colleges (giving each separately) during each of the last three academical years commenced their education in public elementary schools; how many of the entrants during the same period had at one time or other attended rate-aided secondary schools; and what was the total number of entrants in each of those three years?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I have no information on the subject.

RUTLISH SCIENCE SCHOOL (MERTON).

Mr. EDE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the examination papers and results of an examination for entrants to Rutlish Science School, Merton, Surrey; whether he is aware that
the questions were set and me papers marked by the University of London; and, in view of the poor attainments shown by the prospective fee-paying entrants, what action does he propose to take to enforce the Board's requirements as to the educational standard to be reached by all entrants to State-aided secondary schools?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. Member sent me some particulars of the examination results of candidates for admission to this school. Until the governors have settled which of the candidates they will admit it is not possible for me to say what action may be necessary.

Mr. EDE: Does the President of the Board of Education intend, in this case, to enforce the rules of the Board with regard to the standard of admission if the governors attempt to admit persons who have proved to be of too low a standard?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. Member has, no doubt, seen the answer which I gave about the standard provision, and to that I adhere. I would rather not attempt to say what action I should take, in answer to a hypothetical question.

UNIVERSITY GRANTS.

Mr. FISHER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government mean to provide any additional grants for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge during the current financial year; and, if so, whether a Supplementary Estimate will be introduced for the purpose?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.

Mr. FISHER: Are we to assume that the additional grants to be made available for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are to be deducted from the provision already voted by Parliament for the other Universities and University Colleges upon the Treasury grants, and if this be so will my right hon. Friend undertake to reconsider the matter in view of the grave difficulties these Universities are experiencing in meeting the demands now made upon them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that there is a considerable accumulation which has not been utilised at the moment. I am hoping that such grants as we may be able to give to the Universities may be taken temporarily at all events out of that accumulation.

Mr. FISHER: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this accumulation is a comparatively small sum, and it is very important that the University Grants Committee should be able to hold back a certain sum to meet unexpected contingencies which may arise in the course of the year; and does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be a very disastrous precedent if this sum were to be raided?

Mr. FISHER: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the serious extent to which the development of higher education in this country is being impeded by the inadequate incomes of the universities, which even prevent them from maintaining their libraries at a reasonable standard of efficiency; and whether, in view of the great national importance of improving and developing the provision of university education, he will consider the restoration of the grant for universities and colleges in England, Wales and Scotland to the figure at which it stood in the Estimates of 1921–22?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Newcastle on the 28th June.

WEST HILL INFANTS' SCHOOL, EPSOM.

Mr. EDE: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action the Surrey Education Committee has taken with respect to the complaints made by the Epsom Urban District Council on the sanitary condition of West Hill Infants' Council School, Epsom; whether he is aware that the managers of the Epsom council schools have asked the education committee to provide a new school; and whether he will be prepared to sanction the erection of a new school on the site purchased by the County Council in Dorking Road, Epsom, to replace the West Hill Infants' Council School??

Mr. WOOD: I have communicated with the local education authority, asking what action they propose to take with regard
to the complaint made by the Epsom Urban District Council, but have not yet received a reply. I have seen a newspaper statement of the nature referred to in the second part of the question, and if an application is made for approval of a site for a new school, I shall be prepared to consider it sympathetically.

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the County Council were allowed to purchase the site, and all that is required now is his consent to erect the building on it?

Mr. WOOD: I was not aware of that. I will inquire into it.

Mr. EDE: I negotiated the purchase.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATION COMMISSION (SALARIES).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what are the salaries paid to the chairman and members of the Reparation Commission; whether these appointments are regarded as whole-time appointments; and whether the salaries are subject to Income Tax?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 1. The French, British, Italian and Belgian delegates to the Reparation Commission receive salaries of 100,000 francs per annum each together with allowances for official expenses of 20,000 francs each. The British, Italian and Belgian delegates also receive expatriation allowances of 20,000 francs each. The appointments are whole-time appointments.
2. The French delegate is chairman, but receives no additional remuneration in that capacity.
3. The salaries and allowances are normally payable in gold francs, but at present the British delegate is paid in sterling at the par of exchange, and other delegates in French paper francs at a fixed rate of 2 1/3 French francs for each franc of salary.
4. These rates of remuneration, which have been in force since 1st July, 1922, represent a considerable reduction upon the rates previously paid.
5. The non-French delegates enjoy privileges in regard to French taxation normally accorded to the occupants of high diplomatic posts. The British delegate is not subject to British Income Tax in respect of income received from the Reparation Commission so long as he is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (NAVAL WING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached as to the future control of the Naval wing of the Royal Air Force?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, who are inquiring into this question, have not yet presented their Report. Until their Report has been received and considered, I am unable to make any statement.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate the Report being received and his statement being made before the House rises for the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If that does not turn out to be possible, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that nothing will be done meanwhile?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will await the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRIMSBY FISHERMEN (INCOME TAX).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has inquired further into the case of the fishermen imprisoned at Grimsby and elsewhere for non-payment of arrears of Income Tax; and what is the result of the inquiries?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I inquired into this matter before replying to the question previously put by the hon. and gallant Member. I am unable to add to the reply I then gave.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are being imprisoned for debt and is not that against the law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These poor fishermen are quite able to pay. One of them is spending money in getting drunk regularly and one of them is a Super-tax payer.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cases which I mentioned on the Finance Bill are still in existence and men are going to gaol periodically who cannot pay; and will he expedite the inquiry into those cases?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member will receive a letter from me to-morrow morning which I have already signed with reference to those cases.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman's description apply to the man who had his home sold up?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: To which man does the hon. and gallant Gentleman allude? If I know the name, I can then answer the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

Mr. HANCOCK: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the total number of employés in the Customs and Excise for each year since 1918?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total numbers of staff employed in the Customs and Excise Department in each year since 1918 are as follow:


1919 … …
12,204


1920 … …
12,641


1921 … …
12,547


1922* … …
11,456


1923*… …
11,509


*The figures for these years exclude staff in Ireland.


The increase shown in 1923 is due to the inclusion of the new Coast Preventive Force which has taken over part of the work formerly performed by the Coastguard.

STATE PRINTING WORKS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the fact that during the War the leakage of information contained in confidential documents and secret codes printed by private firms was so serious that it was found necessary to establish
a Government printing works to undertake this work, he will say whether this step has been found effective in preventing such leakage?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative. So far as I am aware, there has been no leakage of information from the Government printing works.

Mr. MOSLEY: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the financial result of the working of the Stationery Office Press at Harrow during each of the three experimental years ending June, 1923?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 15th June, 1920, to 31st March, 1921:
Loss—£32,839 11s. 11d.
1921 to 1922:
Loss—£21,093 0s. 7d.
1922 to 1923:
Profit (subject to audit)—£49,806 12s. 8d.
1st April to 30th June, 1923:
Profit (estimated minimum)—£10,000.

Mr. MOSLEY: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in connection with the printing of matter relating to the Representation of the People Act of 1918, the State Printing Works at Hare Street tendered for a part of the work at prices similar to those tendered by private printing firms who had undertaken the remainder of the work, when it was found, in the Costing Department of the State Printing Works, that these prices gave a net profit of considerably over 50 per cent., and that, as a result of this discovery, the Stationery Office cancelled all contracts and obtained new contracts at a lower and more reasonable price; and what was the estimated saving to the State as the result of the substituted contracts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The actual percentage of profit was 65⅔. With regard to the second part of the question, a saving of £227,000 resulted from the more advantageous tenders secured by the Stationery Office the second time the contracts were put out.

Mr. COLLISON: Was not this economy effected during the year in which the Government works suffered a loss of £21,000?

Mr. MOSLEY: Was not the point of my question that when the State Printing Works examined the prices tendered by other firms in their Costing Department, it was found that the ring against the Government were making a profit of 65 per cent.?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My answer was that the profit was found to be 65 per cent.

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: Were not the contracts of 1918 made at a time when the labour market was in a very bad condition, all the able-bodied men being in the Army, and 18 months later was not more labour available?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have only given the actual facts in my reply. As to the causes, I shall be glad if I am not called upon to give an answer, as there is a Treasury Committee—including several Members of this House—sitting on the question, and it will inquire as to the success or otherwise of the enterprise.

Mr. BECKER: Were not the Government Departments the only people who could get paper at that time except at exorbitant prices?

Mr. MOSLEY: That in no way accounts for the fact that private firms made a profit of 65 per cent.

CENTRAL STORES, WANDSWORTH.

Mr. W. THORNE: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many hours per week the watchmen work at the Central Stores, Stewarts Road, Wandsworth, with the tell-tale patent recording clock; what is their rate of pay per week or per hour; and if there is any intention of further reducing their present rate of pay?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to answer this question. I am having inquiry made into this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member in the course of a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MOTOR TYRES (IMPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the cut recently made in foreign motor tyres due to depreciated exchanges; and whether he will help the British motor
tyre industry, which is being ruined by foreign competition solely due to depreciated exchanges, by including foreign motor tyres in the same category as other imported spare parts of motor cars which are subject to 33 1/3 per cent. import duty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been drawn to the reduction in the price of tyres to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but as I have previously stated, I regret that I am unable as at present advised to accept the suggestion to impose an ad valorem import duty.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of scheduling them under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which was specially introduced to prevent vital industries from being ruined?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is this not one of the cases that the House of Commons determined to put a stop to where the competition is unfair owing to the collapse of exchanges?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If it is desired that they should be brought under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, that would involve an application to the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry, and that does not come within the province of my Department. With regard to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Samuel), I am fully aware of the difficulties in regard to this matter, but I am afraid that, under the present circumstances, I must ask my hon. Friend to take the answer which I have given that, as at present advised, I am unable to introduce a Measure in the House.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman admits that he is unable, without the authority of Parliament, to include any new articles in the Schedule?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to give an answer that would mislead my hon. and gallant Friend, but if he will put down a question, I will give him quite a definite answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EYEMOUTH HARBOUR (LOAN).

Mr. HANCOCK: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total
amount remitted to the Eyemouth harbour trustees of the loan of £10,000; how much of this amount is principal and how much is interest; and whether this remittance is a loss to the Treasury?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total amount remitted to date is £4,745 4s. 1d., of which £2,551 17s. 2d. is principal and £2,193 6s. 11d. interest. Under Section 15 (2) of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887, the amount of principal written off has been made good to the Local Loans Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Mr. HANCOCK: Is all this lost to the Treasury?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS (FEE FUND).

Mr. HANCOCK: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at what rate per pound Income Tax was paid to the Income Tax Commissioners out of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Fee Fund is devoted to the payment of pensions to retired officials of the House of Lords, and these pensions are charged to Income Tax at the rates appropriate to the incomes of the individual pensioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — COPIES OF WILLS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether copies of wills supplied by the principal probate registry which have to be called for personally are delivered from the same room as are copies of all the divorce documents, petitions, decrees, etc.?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I ask why, if other documents are sent by post, these cannot also be sent by post?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I rather expected my hon. Friend to put that question. I have already written to the President of the Probate Division and I am hoping to make arrangements that will be convenient to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FACTORY, HUNSLET, LEEDS.

Mr. BROTHERTON: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any records are retained relating to the cost of new buildings erected on the estate of the No. 2 National Factory, Hunslet, Leeds, and which was used by the Ministry of Transport for a short time; and if the full amount, in detail, is available that the sale of machinery, etc., realised from that factory?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These premises were taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act in 1916. The approximate expenditure on new buildings was £38,000 and on alterations and improvements to buildings existing when the premises were taken over, £22,000. As regards the second part of the question, considerable clerical labour would be involved in searching through the sale accounts for these details, which it is regretted the Department cannot undertake with the present depleted clerical staff.

Mr. BROTHERTON: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that at this particular place there were four immense bays built on this ground which the Minister of Transport in the late Government used for transport purposes, and that each one was equipped with one of the finest electrical cranes available? What has become of that property? Has it been handed over to the owner of the land? And what has become of the equipment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the hon. Member must see I cannot carry all these details in my head. I must ask for notice of the question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can we have the full amount realised by the sale of the factory?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will give it if a question be put down.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is part of the question.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes, I see I have not the full details, but will get them if asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR DUTIES (EXEMPTIONS).

Mr. HURD: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if there are any
institutions legally known as peculiar places or otherwise in which alcoholic liquors are obtainable free of duty; and, if so, will he state the reason for their exemption?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend refers to alcoholic liquors for use as beverages, I am not aware of any institutions legally known as "peculiar places" or otherwise in which alcoholic liquors are obtainable free of duty. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend can give me privately the address of any such peculiar place.

Mr. HURD: Is it not the fact that certain members of the legal profession are enabled to obtain large glasses of beer for a penny?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that must apply, not to my branch but to other branches of the profession.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE:

CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any progress has been made with the negotiations with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by which they would bear a larger share of the burden of Imperial expenditure?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I have not up to the present received the replies of the Island authorities to the letters which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I addressed to them on this subject last January. On the receipt of those letters, Committees were appointed by the Islands to consider the whole question and report. I should hope that these Committees have by now completed their investigations and that the Islands will very shortly be in a position to inform me what is the assistance they can give to the Imperial Government.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: What is the position with regard to the Isle of Man?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Exactly the same as the others.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. BECKER: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been called to the stipulation made by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that goods may be exhibited which consist of 49 per cent. foreign and 51 per cent. British material and manufacture; and do these percentages refer to value, bulk, or weight, or on what are these percentages based?

Captain DOUGLAS HACKING (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on the same subject on the 11th July by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Mr. BECKER: That reply does not state on what the percentage is based—whether it is on the cost of the material, or what?

Captain HACKING: I think the hon. Member is wrong. It says that the Exhibition authorities require that at least 51 per cent. of the value of any such articles shall be due to British material and labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH RATE AND INFANTILE MORTALITY.

Mr. LANSBURY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give the House a return showing the birth rate in the 20 towns which contain the greatest amount of unemployment and overcrowding; and if he will state the death rate among children up to six months of age, 12 months, and five years, if possible separating the figures as between the actually overcrowded, districts of such towns and the portions where overcrowding is not so bad?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): I am afraid that a return on the basis suggested would be impossible as the figures of unemployment do not in fact follow those for overcrowding.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL HOSPITALS (VISITING COMMITTEES).

Mr. W. A. JENKINS: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that at
present Poor Law guardians have not the right of full representation upon the visiting committees of mental hospitals; and will he take steps to make provision for this right in the Bill about to come before Parliament?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I doubt if it is desirable to alter the existing law in the direction suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Sir W. de FRECE: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour whether as a general rule the returns of prices received from different centres of population in the country for the purposes of the cost-of-living index show any very marked variation; and, if so, of what nature?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The returns of retail prices of food received from different centres show very little variation in the prices of some articles, such as sugar and margarine, but considerable variation in the prices of others, such as bacon and butter. In some cases variation in price is due to differences in the kind of article in customary demand locally, while in other cases it is due to variation in local circumstances and supplies. These considerations, of course, applied before the War as well as at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR.

Mr. BARNES: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that quantities of refined sugar which have come from the United States to this country have had to be reshipped as they could find no sale in this country; and whether he could state what the quantities were and why they could find no market?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The quantity of refined sugar imported into this country from the United States, which has been re-consigned to that country during the first six months of the current year, was only about 2,000 cwts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK RATE.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the
practice of the Governors of the Bank of England to confer with His Majesty's Ministers before changing the bank rate; whether they did so before the last change; and whether such change had the approval or sanction of the Government?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative, and the third part, consequently, does not arise. In accordance both with the tradition in this country and the unanimous advice of experts at the Brussels and Genoa Conferences, control of the bank rate rests with the Central Bank and not with the Government.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Baronet tell us the number of gentlemen who meet every Thursday to decide upon the bank rate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been to the Bank several times, and the number varied. It may be ten or a dozen, or more.

Mr. THORNE: Or less?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not often. The Bank Board has, certainly, more than a dozen members—I forget how many there are—and they all have the right to attend Board meetings.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Baronet in a position to say what 1 per cent. on the bank rate means to the community?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the whole action of the Bank of England has been in the past, and is at present, marked by consideration for the public interest, rather than for the interests of the shareholders?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly, I think that is so.

Mr. POTTS: When a meeting takes place, how many form a quorum?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that hardly arises, but if the hon. Member will put a question down, I will ask the Bank if they will give me the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEERS (PENSIONS).

Mr. PIELOU: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is
aware that 19 naval ratings called up by proclamation on the 2nd August, 1914, under the Naval Coast Volunteers Act (15th August), 1853, were eventually sent back to carry on as instructors at the Royal Naval Hospital School, Greenwich; that, despite Admiralty recommendations in their favour, these men have not been permitted to have their service between 2nd August, 1914, and the 1st January, 1918, counted towards pension, neither have they received during that period the pay authorised by Treasury Letter of 20th August, 1914; and whether he will undertake to accept the Admiralty's recommendation in this case and arrange for these men to be treated similarly to the Marine pensioners who were employed under exactly similar conditions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): I have been asked to reply. This matter was discussed in Committee of Supply on the 18th July, 1922, and I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend the First Lord then made.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOFFMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the terms on which the Government interest in the Hoffman Manufacturing Company were acquired and subsequently sold; and whether the transaction resulted in a profit or a loss?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer to this question is rather long, I will, if the hon. Member will allow me, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

This factory was acquired during the War on the terms set out in my predecessor's reply of the 15th February, 1922, to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson). It would not be in the public interest to disclose the precise terms of sale, but I may say frankly that they involved a pecuniary loss. Against this must be set several considerations on which it is impracticable to place an exact money value, such as the importance of keeping down the price of ball-bearings and effectually controlling and extending their manufacture—both
on this property and elsewhere—during the War period. The recent sale of the Government's assets was made after reference to all parties known to be interested and after extensive public advertisement. The price received is, under existing conditions, considered satisfactory, being in excess of the reserve price.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Would the Prime Minister tell us how far he proposes to go to-night with the Orders of the Day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the first six Orders.

Mr. MacDONALD: Is it proposed to take all the Supply Votes?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. I beg pardon. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to that. I am only proposing to take Votes 14 and 15, to sanction certain expenditure which I believe to be necessary.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Do the Government propose to proceed with the proposals in certain Scottish Education Bills from the House of Lords? As my right hon. Friend probably knows, there is a good deal of opposition from all quarters of the House to those Bills.

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that considerable opposition has been manifested.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw attention to the late position on the Order Paper of the Supply Votes, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that Supply is put down so that we may reasonably expect it to be taken at an earlier hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not clear what the hon. and gallant Member's point is, but the Votes put down for to-night are merely to sanction certain expenditure.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is exactly my point. Will the right hon. Gentleman see in future that we are not asked to sanction expenditure at a late hour of the night, especially in view of the financial situation of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will observe that this is the Report stage of these Votes, which have already been discussed in Committee.

Captain BENN: With reference to the Education (Scotland) Bill, I presume it is only the Second Reading that is to be taken to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 157.

Division No. 292.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lamb, J. Q.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Doyle, N. Grattan
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Ednam, Viscount
Lorden, John William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lorimer, H. D.


Apsley, Lord
Ellis, R. C.
Lougher, L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Astor, Viscountess
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lumley, L. R.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Manville, Edward


Barnston, Major Harry
Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, H. D. R.


Becker, Harry
Furness, G. J.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gardiner, James
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Garland, C. S.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Murchison, C. K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nall, Major Joseph


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Blundell, F. N.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Briggs, Harold
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Paget, T. G.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pease, William Edwin


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Harrison, F. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bruford, R.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Bruton, Sir James
Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perring, William George


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, Basil E.


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Phillipson, Mabel


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pielou, D. P.


Button, H. S.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Houfton, John Plowright
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Clayton, G. C.
Hughes, Collingwood
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, G. H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hurd, Percy A.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Gerald B.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, William (Bolton)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Frederick


Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Tubbs, S. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Lord
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Steel, Major S. Strang
Wallace, Captain E.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Waring, Major Walter
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wells, S. R.



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Titchfield, Marquess of
Winterton, Earl



NOES.


Adams, D.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Herriotts, J.
Richards, R.


Attlee, C. R.
Hill, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hillary, A. E.
Riley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Hinds, John
Ritson, J.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Batey, Joseph
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Rose, Frank H.


Bonwick, A.
Irving, Dan
Salter, Dr. A.


Brotherton, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Buckie, J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burgess, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simpson, J. Hope


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Collie, Sir John
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Collison, Levi
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snowden, Philip


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lee, F.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Duffy, T. Gavan
Linfield, F. C.
Sullivan, J.


Ede, James Chuter
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edmonds, G.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thornton, M.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Turner, Ben


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Falconer, J.
McLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Fildes, Henry
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Warne, G. H.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Foot, Isaac
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Webb, Sidney


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morel, E. D.
Weir, L. M.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir, John W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wintringham, Margarel


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hancock, John George
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Harbord, Arthur
Paling, W.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hardie, George D.
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hayday, Arthur
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Spears and Mr. Lunn.


Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Railways (Authorisa-
tion of Works) Bill [Lords]): Lieut.-Colonel Rhodes.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

OLDHAM AND ROCHDALE CORPORATIONS WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Finance Bill,

Cotton Industry Bill,

North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Essex County Council (Barking Bridge) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 ("Short Title") and 2 ("Definition") ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to raise fifty million pounds for constructing, extending, and equipping railways in India and irrigation works and for other purposes.)

It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State at any time or times to raise in Great Britain, as and when necessary, by the creation and issue of capital stock, bonds, debentures, or bills, or partly by one of such modes and partly by another or others, any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole fifty million pounds sterling, to be applied to—

(1) The construction, extension, equipment and improvement of railways in India by State agency, or through the agency of a company or companies under engagement with the Secretary of State;
(2) The repayment of the principal of any bonds, debentures, or debenture stock issued by any such company under the guarantee of the Secretary of State;
(3) The discharge of any obligations incurred or arising by reason of the purchase by the Secretary of State of any railway constructed or worked in India by any such company, or on the determination of the contract of any such company with the Secretary of State;
(4) The construction, extension, equipment, and improvement of irrigation works in India.

Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: I beg to move, after the word "sterling" ["fifty million pounds sterling"] to insert the words,
provided that at least seventy-five per cent. of any such sum, or sums, so raised shall be expended in Great Britain and.
It seems to me that if we empower India to come and raise money in the best money market in the world, in view of our trade and our large number of unemployed, we should have some safeguard that the money is, in part at least, spent in this country. In view of the German and Belgian exchange it is quite reasonable and possible that the Indian Gov-
ernment, having borrowed this £50,000,000 or £55,000,000, should try to get better value than they can in this country by going to them for material and it would be disastrous to our locomotive and rail works that this money should be spent other than in this country. When we borrow money from America they attach a Clause insisting that we should spend a considerable part of it in that country. France imposes similar conditions and I fail to see why in allowing India to borrow this money we should not attach some condition to the spending of it in this country. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) pointed out on the Second Reading that 95 per cent. of the money, in fact, is spent in this country. But at that time the money markets in Europe were not in the state in which they are to-day, and it is only fair and reasonable that we should add this governing Clause to the Bill and so ensure that our industries shall have a share of this capital that we are putting up.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. WISE: I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He may be putting this Amendment forward in all good faith, but I fear if a stipulation of this sort were put into a prospectus the country which is getting the money would not benefit by being able to buy the goods in the cheapest market. Supposing a country like India gets a loan, through a prospectus, of £10,000,000. This Amendment would be that £7,500,000 should be spent in this country. Where is the other £2,500,000 to be spent? Here or in a foreign country? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at it from a practical business point of view, I think he will realise that practically the full amount will be spent in this country, whether the order is given in England or to a foreign country. Supposing India makes this loan and £7,500,000 is spent in locomotives and wagons, that amount goes to the builders of those locomotives and wagons. Supposing the balance of £2,500,000 is spent in France? The £2,500,000 goes from the credit of India to the credit of France and, eventually, through triangular finance, France comes to this country and orders goods. No gold goes to France but goods. Take another instance of how triangular finance is
worked. Take the position of Norway. Supposing Norway gets a loan here for £3,000,000 to buy coffee in Brazil. Norway floats the loan here through a prospectus, and people subscribe through the prospectus. That loan stands to the credit of Norway. Norway buys the coffee from Brazil, but the money does not leave this country. The actual position is, that Norway gets the coffee from Brazil to her country. The £3,000,000 is transferred from the credit of Norway to the credit of Brazil. Brazil orders machinery in this country, and the £3,000,000 leaves this country not as cash but as goods. I feel confident that if the hon. and gallant Member looks at it from that point of view, he will see that it would be to the detriment of this country to agree to his Amendment. I think he will also realise that we are the financial centre of the world, and the money market of the world; that benefits our trade to an enormous extent. It helps us by being able to keep the credit of the country sound, and it enables us to have cheap money. If you have any stipulation like this in a prospectus, I believe it would be a detriment to our country and to the country that borrowed money.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: It illustrates, I think, the topsy-turveydom of politics when we listen to a Protectionist speech from the benches below me and to a Free Trade speech from the benches opposite. I only trust we may welcome the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) at a Free Trade meeting in Committee Room 14 this afternoon. The hon. Member for Ilford has taken the words out of my mouth, but, as he has already pointed out, this Amendment is totally unnecessary as things are at present. In the past 95 per cent. of the goods that are required have been bought in this country, because India can get them better and cheaper and there is, therefore, no necessity for the Amendment. Apart altogether from that, is it not our duty to leave this question to India? Let India buy where she wants to buy, and do not let us in this House seek to regulate or tie her down in this way.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend the Under-Secretary will not be surprised at my intervention, because he knows that when in office he and I had some conversations about a similar Bill,
and I was considerably shocked to find that pledges had been given by the India Office, which could not of course be reopened at that moment, but which tied the hands of the Government in respect to that particular loan. He will, I think, recollect that I said that so long as I was Leader of the House he would find much difficulty in getting a Bill for another Last India loan without some kind of assurance from the Government of India that, as far as they could, they would spend the money which is not required in India itself in this country under present circumstances. My Noble Friend will, therefore, not think that I am taking up any new line. I do not think the question is quite as simple as the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) made it appear. It is, of course, a truism of trade that the great bulk or, at any rate, a very large proportion of these international transactions are not merely dual but are triangular, as my hon. Friend says. You may, indeed, have even more angles than that. A purchase or a sale beginning in this country may run in a circle round the world in a series of transactions before the account is eventually balanced. Such conditions as we have before our eyes in the world at the present time, with the lack of purchasing power elsewhere, have a most detrimental effect on our commercial prospects here, but that does not wholly settle this question. Nor is it wholly settled by the fact that in the past India has, in the main, purchased in this market. India has done so in the past, again and again, under the influence or direction of the Secretary of State, and what we want to know is, is the Secretary of State going to exercise the same influence at the present time? Has he come to an understanding with the Government of India that the money raised here shall in the special circumstances of the present time—without trying to lay down a general rule for the future—be, as far as possible, spent in our own market?
Consider what our position is here. We have, by immense sacrifices, largely restored our credit. We have, by shouldering courageously very heavy burdens, fortified the City of London in its old position. We are, certainly for industrial purposes if not for Government purposes, the great lenders of the world. Somebody says America. America is not the great international
lender that we are, not even yet. There is no market in the world to which India can go with success for such large sums at the present time as she can come to London. There is no market that will give her her money upon such good terms as the City of London. Is it unreasonable to ask that a borrower in our country, taking advantage of our resources and of our terms, at a time when trade is stagnant and becoming more and not less stagnant, when our manufacturers are working off such orders as they have and cannot replace them on their books—is it unreasonable, is it ungenerous, is it unwise to ask that borrower, as a condition of the facilities which we offer her that, where she has to spend money for her own purposes outside her own boundaries, she should spend it here rather than elsewhere? It seems to me common sense, and I will undertake to say that if India went to Paris or to New York she would not get a franc or a dollar except on the condition that she placed her orders in France or the United States of America. We have been so strong financially, so prosperous, that it was not necessary, and we have not been accustomed to make a condition of this kind, but I think these are times when the finances of the City of London ought to be put into some kind of correlation with the general conditions of the country. I think I heard questions being asked about the bank rate at Question Time, and some aspersions being cast, most unjustly, on the Bank of England. Why is the bank rate less? Because the ordinary lender is thinking of his own interest and not the interest of the country, and the Bank of England has to step in to protect the interests of the country, and to interfere with the free play of economic forces and enlightened self-interest. I do not think we can afford, under present circumstances, to place our financial resources indiscriminately at the use of the whole world, and I think some such undertaking from a borrower as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison) in his Amendment is a reasonable undertaking and that we shall be given a pledge. For, after all, the Secretary of State has a great responsibility even under the changed circumstances. He has to sign these bonds, and they cannot be issued without his signature.
The Government ought not to resent a condition of the kind that is suggested, though, I would add, not in the exact terms which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has put in his Amendment. I take it that part of the money which is required for construction must be spent in India itself. I do not know what the proportion is, but that must be excluded. Surely, however, we have a right to have some assurance that where the money is to be spent in the purchase of machinery, of material, rails or locomotives, or rolling stock, it shall be done in this country—it is done with the money of this country—even if it cost a little more, unless, of course, a case is made out to the satisfaction of the Government of India or the Secretary of State that there is an undue combination against the Government of India, and that they are not getting a fair price in our market. I do hope my Noble Friend, though I should not advise the acceptance of the exact words of the Amendment, will give some such assurance on behalf of the Government of India.
Over yesterday's Debate hung the shadow of long-continued unemployment, without any prospect of the shadow lifting in the immediate future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke gravely of our prospects—I think not too gravely. Why do we suffer while there is no unemployment in France, in the United States, in Germany? Because those countries, at any rate for a considerable time, can be self-supporting and self-sufficing, and can consume all they produce. We cannot do that even when our domestic trade is good, even when our agriculture is prosperous. We are dependent in the best of times upon our export trade. We stand in a position unparalleled amongst the nations of the world, and when the purchasing power of other nations is so restricted by the chaos of the exchanges, by the political uncertainties and unrest which exist at the present time, I think we should be wanting to our people if we did not secure all that we can reasonably and properly secure in order that we may not be left wholly without work or employment. I think this is a very fair condition to lay down—that, in return for the use of our market, money which is raised here must be spent here for the goods that are required, given that they
can be purchased here on reasonable and fair terms.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It is well not to be surprised when the unexpected occurs in Debate, but I confess that I was somewhat surprised at the speech on which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison) based his case for the Amendment which he has put on the Paper, and I will say a word or two about that case in a moment. But I would first like to refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) the importance of which I fully recognise. He referred to a personal incident. He said that last year, when he was sitting on this bench and I was occupying the same position as I do to-day, he had said to me in private conversation that while the Government of India might be able to get the Loan Bill then brought forward, without any such condition as that which has been suggested in his speech to-day, he thought that they would not be able to do so on all future occasions.
I am sure he will believe me when I say that I have no recollection whatever of such a conversation, but I accept his statement most fully that it did take place. But if it did, I must have been very much to blame, because I could not have made it clear to my right hon. Friend at the time, what is quite clear, that it was not a question of this Bill or that Bill, but that it was a question of the Government, of which he was a Member before my Noble Friend and myself were, accepting, as I understand through the then Secretary of State, the Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of India, which was passed in September, 1921, on the subject of these contracts, in reference to the requirements of the Government of India in matters of railway and irrigation supplies. That Resolution was as follows:
That this Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council that the High Commissioner for India in London should be instructed by the Government of India to buy ordinarily the stores required for India in the cheapest markets consistently with quality and delivery, and that every case where this rule has not been followed should be communicated to the Government of India with full reasons for the information of the Legislative Assembly.
That Resolution, which was passed by the Assembly, was accepted by this Parliament and by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend I am sure will agree that this is so. I will not go into the history of the amount of Cabinet responsibility which existed in His Majesty's Government at the time, but it was accepted by the right hon. Mr. Montagu. That is a matter to which I refer first of all because I think that is the crux of the whole case, and I have ventured to bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend first in as short and concise a form as possible. What has taken place under that system since it was established? During the first year from April, 1922, to March, 1923—may I say in passing that had I been in possession of figures so good as these last year I should have put the case in my private conversation with my right hon. Friend far more strongly than apparently I did—on behalf of the company managed railways there was spent £6,867,500 in all, of which £6,665,000 represented orders for articles manufactured in Great Britain; and by the State managed railways £1,735,000, of which all but £200,000 was placed in Great Britain, the total being £8,602,500, of which all but £402,500 has been placed in Great Britain.
The orders placed by the High Commissioner for India in the half-year ending June, 1923, represent a total of £1,887,000, of which only £102,000 or roughly 5 per cent., was placed abroad. Hon. Gentlemen may say, "It is all very well to say that only 5 per cent. was placed abroad, but when you speak of orders placed abroad do you include goods purchased in this country but manufactured abroad?" No, I do not. I refer to goods actually only manufactured abroad. So we find—these figures are most important—that of these very large contracts—for they are large even in these days—placed on behalf of the company and State-managed railways in India, roughly all but 5 per cent. have been placed in this country. The hon. Gentleman opposite in this Amendment wishes to lay down that 75 per cent. of the orders shall be compulsorily placed in this country, but if you find as a fact that, under what is called the free borrowing system, no less than 95 per cent. has actually been placed here, surely you could hardly get a stronger answer
than the case which has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
In view of the importance of the speech of my right hon. Friend and the issues raised by him and the hon. Member it is necessary for me to go into the matter a little further, and to answer some specific points. My right hon. Friend said, as I understood, that London was still the money market of the world, and I think that we are all agreed on that. There are many other countries besides India which come to London to borrow money—Brazil, South Africa and many other countries. I do not understand exactly what policy my right hon. Friend was outlining. I do not know whether he suggested—I am asking for information—a proviso that a portion of the goods should be purchased in this country by every borrower who comes to the British market or only in the case in which the borrower is India. If that proviso is to apply to every borrower, I would not venture to enter into a discussion in the realms of high finance with my right hon. Friend, but I think that there would be some practical difficulties in putting such a proviso into force in our markets. I know that such conditions are imposed in the case of other markets, but it is not done in the British market. I think that my right hon. Friend mentioned that it was done in the case of the French and American money markets, but we have never had such a proviso in operation here, and I think that anyone who made that suggestion in this case, or anyone who undertook to carry out such a suggestion, would be undertaking a very large responsibility. I am not sure that I should be in order in going into the merits of the bigger question which is involved in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: This would give too large an extension to the Debate.

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, but I was answering a very important speech by the right hon. Gentleman, and a portion of his answer was—

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: All I said was that there should be some correlation between the action of the City in making these issues and the general conditions of the country.

Earl WINTERTON: Quite. Then I understand that my right hon. Friend
was not contending that we should impose this restriction generally. I turn now to the second part of his argument which, I think, requires an answer. My right hon. Friend said that this Government and the Secretary of State had a peculiar responsibility in reference to these loans, because in the case of each issue the scrip was signed by the Secretary of State or one of his subordinates. That is an important point. The answer is that it is true that the Secretary of State has to come to Parliament on behalf of the Government of India for permission to borrow in the British market, because of his general responsibility for Indian Government finance. But that is no reason, in my opinion, why he should ignore the expressed wish of the Assembly of India, when that wish is unobjectionable and does not go contrary to the principles of raising money in the best way, and purchasing the best and cheapest goods in the best markets. I need not go into the result of carrying out that policy. I have just given the figures and they seem to me to make out an overwhelming case.
I ask the Committee to consider the effect of passing this Amendment. I have already pointed out that last year 95 per cent. of the total requirements purchased abroad came from this country. I would also point out that the hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be a compulsory minimum of 75 per cent. The effect of putting that compulsory minimum into the Bill, it seems to me, would be simply that you would say to India, "It is true that you have in an absolutely free market, through your own High Commissioner, purchased 95 per cent. of your goods in this country, and we recognise thereby"—and I would put this point to my right hon. Friend—"the ability of British manufacturers to compete against the rest of the world. Nevertheless it must be laid down that you shall purchase here." I suggest that that would not be in the circumstances a wise or statesmanlike course. I do not think that it would be showing any regard for the amour propre of a country which is one of our best customers, and I do not think—though I have every sympathy, as I am sure everyone on both sides of the House has, with the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend that we should do everything we can to get trade for this country
—that it would help the general volume of that trade in the long run.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I think that the Noble Lord has made a very convincing reply. He has certainly demonstrated that it is unnecessary to insert a stipulation in the present circumstances, and I think that it is far more satisfactory to us to obtain through the quality of our goods and the success of our own manufacturers the proportion of orders which has been obtained without any Statutory stipulation. I do not think it is necessary, therefore, to carry that point any further now, nor to lay greater stress on the argument in favour of triangular trade, which was so admirably put by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise). I would say, so far as I can read the facts, that I do not think that there is anything which this country and India need more than a revival of that triangular trade, the dislocation of which has thrown everything out of gear. But there is another point. It is really suggested that we should give up the practices of remaining a free money market, and that we should put on restrictions which do partake of a Protectionist character.
I would ask the Committee to consider what the effect of that will be in India itself. In India there are very few Free Traders to be found. There is a growing Protectionist movement. There is an increasing demand that goods bought by the Government should be supplied by India itself. Many of these requirements, of course, such as for railways, cannot at present be provided in India. There is a growing demand that the Government should take steps to make it possible for India to supply her own requirements without coming to this country. We all know how the Protectionist sentiment in India has been fostered by the growth of the Protectionist sentiment in this country. How can you expect India—which was kept previously on a Free Trade basis, because we believed in Free Trade in this country—how can you expect, when we abandon Free Trade, the Indian Protectionist not to point to the fact that here, in the home of Free Trade, the statesmen and Government are giving it up? If you adopt this Protectionist restriction, you will get an increasing demand in
India that moneys on interest raised in India should be spent far more in India and not in this country than they have been in the past. That will have a very wide effect. I do not think you can stop that demand in India, considering the prevalence of the Protectionist views in this country, but you need not go out of your way to increase it. If you say that by a Protectionist restriction of this kind you are going to make a statutory Regulation under which India is bound to spend part of the money which she demands in this country, I think you will find the Legislative Assembly in India increasingly determined that its moneys should be spent in India itself, and that British goods should be more and more excluded from the Indian market. The short-sighted policy of putting on these Protectionist restrictions will, I think, in the long run, tell heavily against the prospects of British industry.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has raised this point, because I have endeavoured to raise the point, though from another angle, on other occasions on which the Bill came before the House and Committee. It is necessary, I suppose, that some supervision should be exercised in the spending of these millions of money on the lines laid down by my right hon. Friend. Otherwise, why come and ask for the permission to borrow? We have abandoned all supervision of Indian finance by the House of Commons. We are not liable for Indian finance if India defaults. We take no part in the Indian Budget. Then why does the Under-Secretary for India come down and ask for this permission unless there be some understood condition? At the present moment we are not responsible for a farthing of the finance of India. We do not guarantee her loans. I want to go back further and ask why it is that the Noble Lord comes down here to ask for permission to raise the money at all? The Indian Government could go to the Imperial Bank of India—they have an office in London, and could raise £50,000,000 by the usual means adopted by our Dominion Governments. Therefore, I presume there must be something in the mind of the Secretary of State which induces him to do something which
is not otherwise useful, and which is the outcome of an obsolete Statute. Recently the Bank of England, considering the public interests of Great Britain, has put up the price of money by one per cent. in order to prevent a drain of money to the United States. Suppose this £50,000,000 were raised in England. Suppose it is not spent as I believe it will be spent; suppose that it goes to purchase railway material in America—[AN HON. MEMBER: "The fact is that the £50,000,000 does not go across to the United States. It is goods that would go across."] I agree, but I am asking this. If there is no danger in that connection, how is it necessary in a similar case, although no money passed to America, that the bank rate was put up 1 per cent.? The Under-Secretary of State did quite wrongly to come down here at all. Such a Bill as this ought no longer to be brought in. It is a farce and meaningless. Unless there is some understanding about spending this money here there is no meaning in the Bill, and the statutory obligation should be repealed that requires its passing by us.

Major ATTLEE: I rise for the purpose of opposing the amendment which is so happily designed to re-unite the two fractions of the Centre Party, I should like to draw attention, first of all, to the ecomomic differences we have noticed on the benches opposite, and to say how much I appreciate the sound economics of the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise). I hope that he will take part in that instruction in the elements of simple economics recommended to hon. Members opposite by the Prime Minister. He offered a great contrast to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), whose economics might be described as those of the gombeen man. The gombeen man is the village moneylender, who lends money to all the village and compels them to repay by purchasing their goods in his shop, at his prices. This amendment is gombeen economics. We are tying down to India to purchase in a single market. The right hon. Gentleman still clings to the Cobdenite idea that there is free competition among sellers in this country. We know, as a matter of fact, that there are rings and combines in every kind of goods. As a member of a municipality I have had plenty of experience of receiving
tenders for goods from various firms at precisely the same price. India is to come to the country to be obliged to spend money in this country, and the result will be that prices will be raised against her, and she will have to buy her goods at enhanced prices. The right hon. Gentleman is the inventor of a great Imperial tradition, and he comes down to the gombeen method of business. That is thoroughly bad economics and thoroughly bad Imperialism. It is a remarkable way of keeping the Empire together. It is not only bad economics, but bad policy. It is about the most un-statesmanlike thing that could be done at this time, when you have enormous discontent in India. The situation in India is very grave. You have there the beginnings of an experiment in self-government, and the House is asked to tell India how she shall spend the money which she is borrowing, and on which she has to pay the interest.. It is a wonderful way of promoting the union of India with the Empire. I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment on the grounds of economics, and for reasons of public policy.

Sir EDWARD MANVILLE: I may say that the subject has engaged the attention of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in this country, and I would remind the Committee that that association is not one actuated by any political motive. It is composed of members of all parties. It is felt by them that the money advanced by this country should, in the main, be spent on the manufactures of this country in the same way as restrictions are made in other countries. That should be accepted as a principle generally. Surely in times such as these, all the capital of this country should be used, as far as possible, in giving employment in the various industries of this country. Even if it means going beyond the principles of this country in ordinary times, the extraordinary times in which we live should make the principle one, I think, acceptable to all parts of the House, especially to my Friends who sit above the Gangway on the other side.

Mr. A. SHAW: There have been several speeches made this afternoon which will cause considerable regret in India, but none of them will, I think, cause such profound regret as that made by one who has held the position of Secretary of State
for India. I wish he had not made that speech. This question goes very deeply. His main contention was that this country could not afford not to put such an Amendment in the Bill.

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say "in the Bill." I asked for an assurance.

Mr. SHAW: The question is, can we afford to make a stipulation? What is the position? Our finances at home may be gravely prejudiced by the consequences of the War. After all, there is something equally important to us as the centre of a great Empire. Can we afford to sap and to undermine the magical secret of our power in India? What is the situation? We are responsible, in a very special sense, for the interests of the Indian people, and we have a very special duty to place those interests, and not our own interests, however great they may be, in the forefront. That very special duty arises out of that peculiar responsibility. What are we asked to do now? We are asked, by a distinguished statesman to deny to the people for whom we are responsible the elementary right, which is freely conceded to any individual, any public company, and to almost any urban district council in this country, to buy in the best markets of the world. If they borrow here, they borrow at a rate of interest which is fixed, and the reward which we get for the lending of money is the rate of interest attached to the loan. If we seek to drive the matter further and to make a stipulation of that kind, then we are taking a step which will gravely prejudice our moral standing not only in India but throughout the world. I have heard it said by distinguished gentlemen who have spent their lives in India that the secret of the British power in India is the sword. The secret of the British power in India is not the sword. It is a secret which this wrecking Amendment would do much to destroy, for it resides, not in the power of the sword, but in the confidence of the great dumb mass of the people of India that our ideals are pure and absolutely unselfish, and that their interests are perfectly safe in our hands.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is really rather tragic to see the light cavalry of the Tariff Reform movement now in the forefront throwing over their esteemed leader. We listened to-day to the strong,
firm accents of the 1906 and the 1910 Elections from the old leader, but they found no echo on the Treasury Bench. This is very sad, but at the same time I think the old guard may take heart of grace from this, that though they have lost the support of their friends now on the Government Bench, the new leaders of the Conservative party, they have gained the support of the National Liberals, and the combination, if they press this to a Division in the Lobby, may be very deadly for the Government. I trust my hon. Friends below the Gangway will not pursue so far, in the interests of Tariff Reform, the life of the Free Trade Government. There are two points which should be touched upon. I think the Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, in his defence of Free Trade, made a mistake in saying that if this Amendment were put into the Bill it would not really make any difference to the amount of goods ordered in this country, nor to the position of Indian finance. I think it would make a considerable difference, because if the ring or combine which supplies those goods knew that in making their tenders they were not to be faced with foreign competition they would not, in that case, quote such close prices as they do at the present time, knowing that there is foreign competition. In fact, the stipulation for the free market and for free trade involves at the same time the prevention of exaggerated prices, due to the position of the combine in being without competition; so that, if this Amendment were carried, it would not mean that any more goods would be ordered abroad or in this country than at the present time, but it would mean that India might, by reason of this provision, have to pay more for the same goods ordered in the same countries, and I do not believe that even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison) wants to see that result.
There is one further point we have to consider. It seems to me that when we have given to India the beginnings of Home Rule, it would be an impertinence for this Committee to tell India that, in the interests of the people of this country, we are going to make for India stipulations which we do not apply to any foreign countries which borrow in this market. I cannot imagine anything more likely to put up the backs of the Indian
people. As the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) has shown, the danger which this country has to face in future is that India will go Protectionist and that the Indians, partly from political as well as from economic reasons, may insist upon getting their goods in India instead of abroad at all. Anyone who has seen the marvellous industrial developments at Jamshedpur and Tatanugger, where hundreds of millions have been spent in developing the iron and steel industry, must realise the grave danger of India simply ceasing to be a customer of this country. It would be a disaster, not only to us, but to the Indians as well were such a Protectionist attitude taken up in that country. We ought to be the last people, by a foolish Resolution of this Committee, to foster any such spirit as that. Do let us realise that it is Indian people who will be paying the interest on this loan, and that it is not only the Indian people but ourselves as well, and the world as a whole, that will benefit by the expenditure of this capital money if that money be wisely spent in the best way in India. The development of Indian transport and the development of Indian commercial facilities will be a benefit, not only to India but to this country, and we should do nothing in this Committee to put any obstacle in the way of India getting that money on the cheapest possible terms and with the freest possible market. For these reasons we on these benches shall support the Government in the Lobby, if the supporters of Tariff Reform go to a Division. In doing so, we shall be acting, not only in the interests of the Indian people but in the interests of the employment of the people in this country as well.

Captain BERKELEY: I only wish to detain the Committee with one word in reply to the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. He gave as an illustration the case of France, and instanced the fact that when a loan is offered in France it is frequently made a condition that the money derived from that loan, or part of the money, shall be spent in France. I think the hon. Member had in mind the case of Poland, in which particular instance the total sum was so conditioned—

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: It has been going on for years.

Sir E. MANVILLE: It has been the invariable practice in France.

Captain BERKELEY: At any rate, in my knowledge, that is the most recent example. Surely, that is the best possible illustration of the vicious principle involved in the Amendment. Because if we compare the volume of loan issue in France with that of this country, the balance has in the past been very much in our favour. We want to keep that balance in our favour. The reason why the London market has been the biggest money market in the world has been because we have lent our money in an unfettered manner. We have fixed our rate of interest, and allowed our rate of interest on the money to be the recompense and the return for the money. That seems to me to be one of the most important of the considerations that the Committee ought to have before it in considering this matter. On that ground, if for no other reason, I shall be compelled, if there is a Division, to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I think it is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that there do exist in this country certain rings, cartels and trusts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) pointed out, he knows by bitter experience, from his previous experience of municipal councils, that these rings do exist for the express purpose of raising prices against the purchaser. A few weeks ago we were discussing here the incidence of the Salt Tax in India, which has caused a great deal of concern amongst the people of that country. The people of India have had that tax imposed upon them, certified by the Governor-General of India, very much against their desires. We are asked now to lay down the stipulation that the Indian Government, in borrowing money, shall spend the money in this country. The market is fixed. I say that the fixed market is an invitation for the imposition of a tax like the Salt Tax by the monopolists in the industries in which the money must be spent. It is fairly well known beforehand how the money must be spent, and what are the kinds of commodities to be bought. By laying it down as a stipulation that the Indian Government must spend its money here you are laying the
Indian people open to be taxed to the extent of the Salt Tax, and are handing them over to the monopolists of this country. This is a most iniquitous proposal, and one can only imagine that the Indian people will resent it very much if it turns out, ultimately, that they are to be overcharged in the interests of the monopolists of this country, to the extent of the amount of the Salt Tax, which was imposed on them against their will. That is one of the surest ways of accentuating the grave discontent that exists there already, and very rightly so. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will be defeated, in the way it deserves to be defeated, in the interests of the Indian people.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison) has raised this discussion. It is a matter of very considerable importance to the business of this country. I regret that what I think is a pure business proposition should be tangled in the barbed wire of old controversies. I really do not see myself what this has got to do with Free Trade and Protection. It is a business proposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) opposite criticised the Amendment from the standpoint of the business of India in this country. That I can understand, but that is not a question of Protection. Protection is a tariff which is raised against goods coming into this country; this is a question—and one of the most important questions which we shall have to consider in the immediate future—of whether we are going to exercise any control upon the lending of money across the seas. I am going to bow to the ruling which you, Mr. Hope, laid down earlier in the course of the afternoon, that I cannot discuss the question of principle broadly. I regret it, but I quite see that it would not be within the four corners of this Amendment or of a discussion of this Bill to do so, but, to this extent, I am bound to take note of it. This Amendment is setting a precedent. Undoubtedly, if a precedent were set with regard to India, it would have to be followed. Let us see what the position is at the present moment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham
(Mr. A. Chamberlain) has pointed out, we have pursued a policy which differs from that adopted by practically all our great rivals. We have used our resources to restore our credit; they have used their credit in order to increase their resources. They have used their credit to re-equip machinery, as I pointed out yesterday, and in other ways; whether it is in Germany, or France, or Czechoslovakia, or Poland they have done it freely. They have damaged their credit to a certain extent. We have gone in for a policy of strengthening credit and improving the value of our currency. The result has been undoubtedly that we have got money to spare to spend abroad where other countries have not. The sovereign is able to look up, whereas their particular coins are going down and down in value. It has yet to be decided which of those two policies will win in the end. Our policy has been what is known as a banker's policy; they have listened rather to their industrialists. That has been the great conflict of policies between the various countries of the world. It has not yet been settled which is right, but, at any rate, we have got up our credit. They will use the equipment they have built up for the purpose of their trade. Why should not we use what we have built up for the purpose of our trade, that is, our credit? Is it imagined that during the last few years there has been an absolutely free market in money? As a matter of fact, this control, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy suggested, is one which has been exercised by the Bank of England. When we were considering the question of unemployment, we had to use what resources were available for the purpose of financing exports abroad—export credits, trade facilities, and so on, and we had to consult the Governor of the Bank of England. We found he was exercising control over issues. I will not say it is an irregular control, because it is a control which was accepted by the City. It was a control by consent, but imposed upon the finance of the City. Men came to him and he said, "I am against that issue." He could not have stopped it, but his decision was accepted. He would say, "I am against it because British trade gets nothing out of it. That is purely for speculation, or a
gamble, or whatever else you may call it, which may interest the particular people who put money into it, but it does not benefit the country as a whole." That was accepted by the City during the last three years. I listened to the argument about triangular trade. It is a very complicated affair, and it does not always work out in that way. The payment we are making to the United States of America is going to prove it, the £30,000,000 a year. That is not going in goods to the United States from this country.

Mr. WISE: That is exceptional.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know. Why should it be exceptional?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: It will go in goods ultimately, in raw materials even.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is going to be a burden. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend behind me pointed out that when you want to prevent money going across to the United States of America you put up the Bank rate. That is a legitimate transaction. You do it to prevent money going across in such a way as would be damaging to your own business at home. We are building up our credit; we are about the only country in the world that can spare money for abroad. The United States of America has had a very unfortunate experience in its lending.

Mr. WISE: Their investments abroad in 1922 were larger than ours.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not contradict that. What I said was that those investments were rather unfortunate, and the fact of the matter is so much is that the case that those who have money to spare in the United States of America are more and more consulting the men here who have got the "touch," who understand it. I remember perfectly well the late governor of the Bank of England, an extraordinarily shrewd person, explaining to me all this triangular business. He showed me a piece of paper upon which a good deal of money had been advanced, and I said to him, "Would you mind telling me how you can distinguish between one and the other?" and he said, "I smell."

Mr. J. JONES: We smell you too!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no use in being rude. This discussion is very important, and I hope it will not be controversial. That is really what it means—that you have got in this country generations of training in dealing with these advances abroad such as no other country has got; it is almost a trained instinct. Then let us make some use of it for the purposes of our industries. It is no use pretending there is not a serious suspicion in the industrial community that the bankers are controlling things rather too much, that our policy is a banker's policy, a lender's policy, a money policy, a financier's policy, and not the policy of industry. That view has gone deep amongst manufacturers and business men outside. I am not going to say whether that is so or not, but I am perfectly certain that the whole of that position has got to be reconsidered. I am a Free Trader, I am against tariffs, but I do not put this in the same category at all. I am in favour of using the special advantages of this country for the purpose of promoting its trade and its industry. If we have got hundreds of millions which we can spare, do not let us merely look at the fact that we may get five or six per cent. for it. That will benefit a certain number; but the money ought to be used for the benefit of the whole of the industries of this country. I could have gone broadly into this question; but let us take this particular issue. The challenge came from India. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary himself quoted a statement about it. We did not begin this business.

Earl WINTERTON: It was when the right hon. Gentleman's Government was in power.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do hope this is going to be regarded as a matter which is a little above mere party points. If we cannot consider a business proposition without a bandying of petty, little, party points of that kind, it is hardly worth while entering into the discussion. This was not done by the Government. This was done by the Indian Government. This document to which he referred was issued by the Indian Government when Mr. Montagu was Secretary of State for India. But what I want to point out is that it was a challenge issued by India. India began it. India said: "We are
going to buy in the cheapest market, wherever we borrow." That was their challenge. I think we are perfectly entitled, if the Indian Assembly is entitled to issue a document of that kind, which is a challenging document, to say, "Certainly, you can buy in the cheapest market; but we are bound also to see that our capital is used to the best purpose for the industries of our country." I do not think there is anything offensive in that. I do not think there is anything unfair in it. Why should that be regarded as something which is an oppression on India?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would you apply it to Australia?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly I would. But I cannot discuss the whole issue here, as I should be out of order if I did. I would introduce that principle of control within the whole of our finance, but I cannot go into that. I hope the Government will reconsider this matter. I can well understand that the Under-Secretary is not in a position to give an answer. He has got his instructions, he is dealing with this particular Bill, and he is not entitled to give an answer of such very great consequence upon the whole of the financial policy of this country. But I do hope that he will convey the sense of the discussion here to his colleagues.
With regard to cartels and trusts to which the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) referred, that could easily be safeguarded. I can quite see that if you put in a condition that the money must be spent in this country, and made it statutory, you might get into the hands of a cartel or trust which would overcharge India. It would take advantage of that fact. But it is easy to protect the Indian taxpayer against that by inserting a condition that if they find they are overcharged in this country there should be an appeal to the India Office, or the India Council, or anybody which would be a fair body, to liberate them from the obligation of the Statute. That would instantly bring down charges and put them in a position which is a perfectly fair one. But I do ask that when we are going to sanction the expenditure of a loan of £65,000,000 upon the development of Indian railways, that, at any rate, we
ought to have some assurance from the Government that they will do their best to get a promise from India that, provided the prices are fair, money will be spent in this market.

Earl WINTERTON: I feel I must answer at once the points put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). May I start by stating that I hope he did not misunderstand me when I interrupted him, and did not think I was trying to make what he described as a petty point against him personally? On the contrary, I do not consider that the point which I endeavoured to make is a petty point. It is a point of the greatest substance. He referred to the resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly, the terms of which I read out, and he said it was a challenging resolution. I do not think it is fair to describe it as a challenging resolution.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It has been the practice.

Earl WINTERTON: As the hon. Member reminds me, it has always been the practice, and I do not think this resolution was intended as a challenge. When I reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he was at the time Prime Minister, and that it happened before my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India or myself took office, I thought it was not a petty point. The Government through its Secretary of State, at a very important time in the history of the relationship between India and this country, accepted a resolution of the greatest importance, and yet my right hon. Friend comes down to the House this afternoon and says, "That is a challenging resolution." Challenging what? Challenging this country? Then why did not his Government and his Secretary of State at the time refuse to accept it? That is a complete answer, showing that it is not a petty point; I think it is a most important point. I say it is not a challenging Resolution. I go further and say that the late Government and the late Secretary of State (Mr. Montagu) were quite right to accept that resolution, because I do not think it was a challenging Resolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, "Let us not be entangled in the barbed wire of old controversies." I quite agree. We all want to avoid
barbed wire, but I wish he and his friends would accept his description of Free Trade as an old controversy, because it was only the other day I saw they had decided to hold a meeting upstairs or in another place—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Noble Lord is going too far.

Earl WINTERTON: When my right hon. Friend says that he does not wish to see us entangled in the barbed wire of old controversies, perhaps I may say that I am very glad to hear it. He went on to say that this was really a business question—whether or not we should allow countries to use our credit without conditions. He said that was the main question. I have already endeavoured to meet it in a reply to another right hon. Gentleman—and certainly no Under-Secretary could complain of not having had sufficiently big game to shoot at this afternoon. I endeavoured to deal with that point, but the Chairman thought I would be wandering outside the bounds of order if I were to proceed to a discussion on how far the application should be made a general one. Therefore I do not propose to pursue the subject now. May I repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingam (Mr. A. Chamberlain) which, in the main, answers my right hon. Friend opposite me? This Amendment seeks to impose the obligation upon India that, when purchasing her requirements for railways, irrigation and such like purposes, she must purchase 75 per cent. in this country. In actual practice, during the last year for which figures are available she has purchased no less than 95 per cent. What, in these circumstances, is the reason for putting such an Amendment as this in the Bill? My right hon. Friend opposite talked a great deal about business not always being concerned with industry and manufacture, but may I point out to him, that you could not get a better result from the point of view of British business and British manufacture than you get from the existing policy, under which 95 per cent of these huge requirements are purchased here? Surely in these circumstances it would be folly to impose this condition and I venture with great diffidence and respect to suggest to the Committee that, after the very full and interesting discussion we
have hart on this subject, we might come to a decision.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I think as the purpose for which the Amendment was put down has been fulfilled in the interesting Debate we have had, I would beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw it.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. HARRIS: I think we have had a most valuable and interesting discussion, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary for India, on his firm stand for a great principle. His action will inspire the confidence of our fellow-subjects in India, and will make them appreciate, as we in this Committee appreciate, that the Noble Lord approaches these problems as a trustee for our Indian fellow-subjects. I am glad that the Noble Lord is not to be led aside from that position by any arguments, even though there is a new Coalition between the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I do not know if this is a new move at any rate, it tends to suggest to us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is gravitating, not towards us, but towards the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and he promises, before long, to develop into a prancing imperialist. That is the danger of associating for so many years with opinions so divergent from his own.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is going outside the subject under discussion.

Mr. HARRIS: I only made those remarks by way of introduction. What I do wish to say is that these discussions at the present time, in relation to the new Constitution in India, have a tremendous effect upon the destinies of our Empire. At the present moment, in France, there is a very strong anti-British movement, and the contention is that we in this country control the destinies of one quarter of the civilised world and that we use our position to divert trade to this country. As a matter of fact, we have always taken a sound line and a justifiable line and the line taken by the Under-Secretary for India in this matter to-day. Each part of the
Empire is a self-governing unit. We ask for no preferment beyond any other country where trade is concerned, and each part of the Empire can buy in whatever part of the world it likes, uncontrolled and uninfluenced by this House of Commons. Therefore, this is not merely a matter of trade or of detail, but there is a great principle involved, and I hope the Committee will be firm and will not allow itself to be diverted from the right course at a time like this when there is great unemployment and trade depression and therefore a great temptation to our traders and manufacturers to bring the influence of this House to bear—and thus to be unfaithful to our trust—not in the interests of the Indian Empire, but of our own trade and commerce and industry. That way lies the break-up of our Empire. So soon as we allow ourselves to exploit our Empire for our own selfish interests, so soon will the Empire go to pieces. That applies especially to India. The Indian people have confidence in us so long as we show we are guided by the sound principle that the interests of each part of the Empire shall be considered first and the interests of the trade of this country second. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has left the Committee I am not going to say all that I had intended to say. In any case, I would not have the effrontery to lecture him on triangular trade, but I am sure the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London will put him in the right direction in regard to that. Every day in Lombard Street in the great bill houses, these matters are being decided quite impartially, quite apart from whether the country concerned belongs to this Empire or not, and quite apart from whether a bill comes from within the Empire or from foreign trade. It is purely a matter of economic adjustment and whether a cargo of wheat is coming from Canada or bales of cotton from the United States, whether meat is coming from New Zealand or tea from India, all these things are adjusted according to the movements of trade. So soon as this country tries to interfere with the delicately balanced and highly scientific working of the exchange, so soon will Lombard Street cease to be the centre of the world money market for that reason, and that reason only, I hope there
will be no interference by Parliament with the money market of this country.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I understand the Mover intends to withdraw his Amendment, and therefore I do not know that there is any need for further discussion, but I should like to say that nothing to my mind could be more fatal than to put a provision of this sort into the Bill. What would be the result? The result would be exactly that which we have already seen in other matters. At once the people who supply the goods which are to be bought under this Bill would make a ring. One has to look these things in the face, and naturally these people would say—and I do not know that I should not say it myself if I were in their place—that as the Indian Government had to buy so many tons of steel and iron and so many railway engines in this country, they must take good care that the tenders were placed at the proper prices from their standpoint. If this condition be omitted, the vast majority of the goods will be bought in this country in any case, but there will be competition, and the Indian Government will be free to go to Belgium or France, or elsewhere, to buy the goods if they cannot get them at suitable prices here. I cannot understand why the Committee should discuss such a proposal at all. Its only result would be to force up prices and to put the Indian Government and the Indian people in a false position. I heard a debate upon India in this House many years ago, in the course of which it was said that we were all Members for India. I trust hon. Members will bear that in mind in dealing with this question.

Mr. J. JONES: I have listened to this Debate with great interest, but most of the hon. Members taking part have spoken from the standpoint of commerce. The rights of the people of India have not been recognised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] No; you have laid stress on the bankers' interests, and spoken at great length about the commercial interests, but nobody has taken up the point as to what right this House, or any other House, has to limit the rights of 300,000,000 of people to control their own policy. I am glad the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) agrees with me.
This great Dependency, or what is now called a Dependency, but which I hope some day will become a self-governing community—

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with that.

Mr. JONES: I know the right hon. Baronet does not agree with that. I hope eventually that India will become a self-governing part of the British Empire, because, if she does not become self-governing, she will become independent and she may become antagonistic and, by her competition in the production of textile goods, she may knock Lancashire out of the market in the cotton trade. I ask the Committee to reject that Amendment which is going to antagonise the people of India. What right have we to say that the "Big Five" should lay down these conditions. Is it an accident that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has supported the proposition that we must place these conditions upon the people of India. Probably they are looking for a seat for the chairman of the "Big Five" Who fixes the rate of interest? What control has this House over the rates of interest charged for the use of money? We have no control. A certain number of people meet in Lombard Street or Throgmorton Street or Petticoat Lane and decide what the price of money is to be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you been there?"] Yes, I have been there many a time and the oftener I go there the more I loathe it. I can see them working the oracle—the three-card trick. Some people play it in cloth caps and others in silk hats.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: I am only following the example of those who have gone before me.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is improving on it.

Mr. JONES: I am glad to have your commendation Sir. The principle for which I stand is the principle of self-government. I contend we have no right to say to the people of India that they must buy so much per cent. of these goods with us and give us the extra profit. By doing so we shall create the very feeling
which the extremists in India desire to see created. We shall then be feeding them with the very ammunition they want. They will say to the people that they have not a free market for their money, nor a free opportunity of expressing their demands and that Great Britain is the enemy. As a consequence the Imperialists who support this policy will be helping towards the break-up of the Empire of which they pretend to be so proud. Let the people of India decide for themselves and if they decide, as according to the Noble Lord they already have, that they will purchase 95 per cent. of their goods here, then there is no need for an Amendment of this character. We should say to India, as to all other parts of the Empire: Do your own business in the way that suits you best and we support you in any policy which is necessary for the development of your trade and industry according to your own ideas.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am never anxious to prolong Debate unnecessarily, and when, under ordinary conditions, an hon. Member proposes to withdraw an Amendment, I acquiesce, but this Amendment is very important, and it has an added importance because it is moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison), who is a member of the National Liberal party. In India, I am afraid, amongst the teeming masses there, the essential differences between the hon. and gallant Member and myself and those with whom I usually co-operate are not always recognised, and the extremists will seize hold of this Amendment, and will say: "Here is the Liberal party"—with no suffix or prefix—"moving an Amendment to restrain the liberty of the Government of India," which is as unrepresentative as it is autocratic, according to these extremists. Nevertheless, this attempt is being made by an hon. Member of the Liberal party, backed up by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—that is the serious point—against the advice of the Noble Earl who speaks for India in this House, and of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), against the advice of those two great pillars of the Conservative party, finance on the one hand and the landed interests on the other. We have two members of the Liberal party, or what the people who
are trying to mislead the masses of India will call the Liberal party, moving this extremely dangerous Amendment, and, therefore, I think it is necessary to make it clear that the sense of this House and the sense of the great part, I believe, of both wings of the Liberal party, is against it.
The right hon. Gentleman has used the extraordinary argument that the trust danger can be got over by some right of appeal. I think we ought to make it clear that nobody else in this House thinks so for one moment. We, ourselves, in this country cannot control our own rings that are forcing up the price of building materials, and what is the use of a right hon. Member, with the experience and the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, trying to hoodwink the people of India by telling them that some visionary and illusory right of appeal can prevent the forcing up of prices? It is quite absurd, and although I am sorry I was in a Committee upstairs, and did not hear the earlier part of the Debate, I think it is necessary to say these few words. I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy will not allow himself to be led astray into these false courses again, and will not pay too much attention to what his right hon. Leader says on these questions. For the very few years that I have been in this House, I have seen nothing but attempts by that right hon. Gentleman to get round these questions of Protection and Free Trade.

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Having regard to the answer made by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, I wish to add one word to what I have already said. The conversation to which I alluded was a personal conversation, but it was on public policy. It was in no sense a confidential conversation. Indeed, it was one in which he informed me that a pledge prevented him from giving the answer in the House of Commons which I thought ought to be given at the moment, and I said that before any similar Bill was brought in again, I should take the matter to the Cabinet and see whether the Cabinet thought that that pledge ought to govern our action in the future. We are all agreed that this particular Amendment will not do, and the hon. and gallant Member for Kirk-
caldy (Sir R. Hutchison), who moved it, is contented with the discussion, and some little time ago asked leave to withdraw it. I do not want to prevent or to delay its withdrawal, but I think it is necessary to add this. My Noble Friend and other speakers have obviously thought that those of us who thought it not unreasonable to ask that Governments or corporations having recourse to the resources of the London market should give a preference to British manufactures when spending their money were making a quite exceptional demand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has already said that a great deal has been done in that way, without legislative or statutory authority, through the influence of the Bank of England, and through the good will with which representations as to the public interest from, the Bank of England are received by those who are making the issues, but you can carry the case a little bit further.
I left the House for a moment to try and find my references, and I have not been able to do so, but what is the practice of our own Government? We give a preference, unless the Government have altered the practice, to British and Empire manufacturers on all Government contracts. The Dominions who borrow in our market give a preference because they have preferential duties which enforce it, and they themselves brought up at one of the Imperial Conferences in the last few years the question of placing orders within the Empire, and sought to get a general agreement among them. I thought we had got it. I thought that India had agreed in that, and I was startled when I learned that India, alone among the British Dominions, had announced a policy plainly disregarding what had been the agreed policy of the nations of the Empire met in council. We are not, therefore, asking for anything exceptional. We are asking for conformity on the part of India with what is the general practice of this Government and of the Empire.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is important, although the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison) has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, because, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamber-
lain) has said, he was contented with the Debate, that there should be some further expression of opinion on this very important matter. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has, by his second speech, shown the importance he attaches to it. He has intimated the practice of other parts of the Empire, but I think this is a matter which should engage the attention of the Committee and guide it in its decision, that there is an essential difference between a voluntary decision, taken on the part of the self-governing Dominions, and a condition imposed upon India by this House. I am surprised indeed that right hon. Gentlemen with the responsibility of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) should have lent the weight of their authority to a proposition such as that which is contained in this Amendment. I can conceive of nothing which could be more disastrous to our relations with India than to impose such a condition as that which this Amendment suggests. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a number of other general statements in the course of his speech which I think are calculated to create the very worst impression outside. He talked about the financial policy pursued in this country as being a bankers' policy, a policy carried out in the interests of lenders, and, consequently, not in the interests of the rest of the community. In the present condition of things in this country, it is the very worst possible impression that could be conveyed to the people outside, that the finances of this country are being regulated in the interests of the lending community. I am surprised that, in view of the situation which exists here at this time, such a statement should have been made so light-heartedly as the right hon. Gentleman made it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said that. I may be wrong, but I listened closely, and I understood him to say it was in the industrial interests of this country.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has misunderstood. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs drew a distinction between a banker's
policy and an industrialist's policy, and he said that the policy which this country had been pursuing was a banker's policy, and not an industrialist's policy. I say that that is a most unfortunate impression to convey, and, furthermore, that it is an unfortunate impression in relation to an Amendment of this kind, and I think, therefore, it is only right that in this House some protest should be made against any such proposition. He also poured contempt on the theory of triangular trade. I am not personally associated with trade, and have no right to speak upon that triangular process from any practical acquaintance with it, but all the people whom I know who are acquainted with the working of trade attach importance to this triangular process, and I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he proposed his Motion for the Genoa Conference in this House, in a speech which I heard under the Gallery in those days, laid the greatest possible emphasis on this triangular process of trade. He argued, it may have been, without conviction, and that may account for the want of success of his speech, but that was the contention to which he committed himself at that time. It is most unfortunate that such erroneous ideas should be propagated with the authority of gentlemen who were such distinguished Members of the late Government.
As to what India is doing, we have the testimony of the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary as to the practice in the last year for which figures are available, that during that period India bought, I think, 95 per cent. in our market. I have information that in one case at least India bought here at a higher price, when she could have got the same thing at a lower price in Belgium, and I think that is a very important consideration to have in our minds. It shows that India, of her own free will, is giving a preference to this country, even at a sacrifice in the matter of cost, but what would be the position if you imposed such a statutory condition upon her? In every case prices would be examined, and in every case the people of India would be considering what India was losing as a result of her having to pay a higher price in this country. There could be nothing which would offer better material for the extremists of India, and therefore, not only on grounds of general principle, but hav-
ing regard to the special situation of India, nothing could be more dangerous, nothing could be more likely to cause greater difficulty in regard to the future relations of India and Great Britain, than to impose such a condition as that which this Amendment suggests.
We are, indeed, in a rather topsy turvy condition. I am in the unusual position of defending the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for India. It is not, of course, unusual that I should be in opposition to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but my company is somewhat strange on this occasion. I am, however, bound to congratulate the Government on the stand they are taking. Apart altogether from general considerations of fiscal policy, the position to which they are adhering is in the best interests of India, in the best interests of this country, and in the best interests of the Empire.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: Before this Clause goes through, I should like to urge on the Noble Lord, on behalf of the India Office, the advisability of considering into what part of the scheme of such Bills as this, a Measure would, or might come, of decentralisation in respect of borrowing powers in India. I have no criticism to make of the substantial scheme of the Bill—far from it. On a recent occasion, when I had some opportunity of acquainting myself with the financial policy and record of the Government of India in respect of their borrowing, I was surprised by nothing more than to find the ultra-conservative nature of the Government of India's policy in that respect. Nothing was ever paid out of capital account except such works as were absolutely certain to give not only a return but a large interest. The policy seemed to be based upon an ultra-conservative basis as regards borrowing for capital purposes. Indeed, I venture to say that if any of our great dominions had been dealt with by their governors by a policy so conservative as that of the Government of India, they would never have made any progress at all. I could not but think that the general progress of India had to appreciable extent been delayed by the lack of enterprise and forward policy, and
the use of money on capital account for development purposes.
It occurred to me at that time, and it seems to me now when I mention the matter, that the remedy, or at least one remedy, or a remedial act in the direction of a more advantageous policy in that respect was the decentralisation of borrowing powers out of the sole hands of the Government of India where they are at present into the hands of the provinces. As the Committee are well aware, it was part of the central idea of the new scheme, of the new regime, in India that there should be a decentralisation of the powers of the Government of India into the hands of the provinces, and that the provinces should become to an increasing extent States responsible for their own well-being and for their own destinies. It is, therefore, in accordance with that central idea of the new regime that there should be a greater measure of decentralisation in the respect I name. There are, it appears to me, two very solid business reasons why there should be a further measure of decentralisation. It can be indicated in the distinction between the Provinces of Bombay and Bengal and the United Provinces which stand, as regards borrowing powers, on a footing similar in status though not quite so absolute in power as those other provinces, the Dominion of Canada or the State Commonwealth of Australia. They should follow their own aims and their own purposes.
That idea, I know, always seems startling to Indian officials, and it is startling only, I think, because of its novelty, not because of its natural disadvantage. At the time of the reform scheme the provinces were given separate purses, and a large part of their own revenues are now in their own hands, and out of the hands of the Government of India. That credit, therefore, upon which useful borrowing can be based, can only be mobilised by the provinces borrowing upon it. The basis of credit for useful credit purposes can only be attained by allowing the provinces purses of their own. Another very important reason, the reason upon which I base this suggestion, is that I do not think the provinces would ever become really self-conscious as States, never become truly inspired by a sense of their own financial responsibility, unless, in this
connection, they were put into direct contact with their own credit with the money market.
As the Committee are well aware, many improvements and hopeful ends of government are now in the hands of the provinces—education, land, irrigation, and so on. The provinces may become masters of their own destinies, and unless and until, in addition, the Central Powers tax for revenue purposes in order to maintain these services, they also have the powers of borrowing, because apart from prejudice, it is, of course, for the Government at the present time, that in order to maintain such services as these in the manner which they must be maintained by the Government, and under the regulation of the State responsible for control, that there should be full control over the capital account as well as over the revenue account. That appears to be a most important reason. I do not think it can be expected that the provinces will ever attain to a full sense of responsibility for their own finances and towards their own high services with which they are entrusted until they have full control of the financial supply as it applies to these services. What more healthy state of things can there be to bring to bear upon any Government in learning the business of finance than that it should be brought in direct contact with the money market and learn by reference to it for the purposes, for borrowing purposes, exactly how its own finances stand? Supposing any of these States were a little lax in making their budgets balance, what more instructive lesson could they have as to the essential necessity of sound finance and of making their budget balance than to come to the money market in London or to the rupee market, and find the reception they would get? One last word in this connection, which, as I think, is not without importance to the future of India. I know it might be said by most of the English financial advisers of the Government of India that it is cheaper to centralise their borrowings in the Government of India.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in this Clause we are only borrowing for railway purposes, and that the general question does not arise, and, therefore, I cannot give him any answer to some of his points?

Mr. YOUNG: I know. As the Noble Lord truly says, borrowing under this Clause is for railway purposes. It may be possible that I shall be more directly in order in a subsequent Clause, still it appears to me that this matter can be brought in order in view of the rather wide nature of the perspective allowed. I do not think in the long run that it would be any dearer to borrow on their own. I refer to provinces which have good credit. In the case of provinces which have not good credit and they are prevented from borrowing on their own account that would be all to the good. There is no reason why they ought to. But a well-to-do province like Bombay should borrow on a basis very little less expensive to itself than the Government of India. Indeed were I myself an investor in such securities I am not at all sure that I would not prefer investment in a well-supported security of the province of Bombay than of the Government of India itself. I do not say one word in encouragement of extravagance. I fully recognise that in making these suggestions that it would be impossible to attain to this end and to make the provinces masters of their own financial house at one step. I think it is possible, if not quite certain, that there might have to be an interval during which the market was made accustomed to provincial loans on the same basis as the Canadian or Australian provincial loans, by some form of support which I need not now par ticularise, from the Government of India. I freely recognise it would be always essential for the Government of India to maintain what I might call an impartial control over the loans such as we have heard is exercised behind the scenes by the Governor of the Bank in difficult times in marshalling together the loans in the City of London. It would, of course, be impossible to allow the matter to sink into mere disorganisation, and for the provinces to become competitors to each other, at one time tumbling over each other and perhaps exciting the market, and at another going in the opposite way. The Government of India would no doubt, at all times, have to exercise this impartial control over the new loans, but in the interest of the future of the provinces themselves, as healthy States in the great Indian State, in the particular interests of their own
sense of responsibility, in the interests of their own financial responsibility and the discharge of it, I would like to make the suggestions I have to the India Office, and possibly also to the Government of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Young) has put forward a suggestion of enormous importance. I feel this point. The Provinces of Bombay and Bengal cannot raise loans, yet the cities of Bombay and Calcutta can raise loans. So that it would appear that we have strict confidence in the municipal administration, yet we have not up till now granted this power to the Provincial Governments. I think it must be understood that the real objection to this decentralisation of the borrowing powers in India comes from the Central Government, who have had up till now control and who desire permanently to keep control. To my mind it is a narrow obscurantism on the part of the Central Government. At the present time when the development of India is in the melting pot, it is of vital importance that we should give all these Provincial Governments a sense of responsibility, and a sense of responsibility can, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, only come, I should say, not "best" but "only," from a real control over the purse and the power that the purse gives. It is nonsense to tell people that they are in control of the purse when they do not get the advantage of controlling the purse wisely; that it matters not one jot to them whether their Budget balances or not; that they are not really in the responsible position that they ought to be in if they are developing their provinces on the right lines.
But there is one contention which I want to put forward now, and that is that the provinces have not yet got control of certain of those services upon which capital expenditure is desirable. Take, for instance, irrigation. Schemes have been put forward. Enormous advantage might be taken of these, and of the powers suggested in the Punjab, where great irrigation and navigation schemes have been brought forward. Irrigation is not only a suitable subject for capital expenditure, not being amongst the transferred services under the control of the citizens
of the Province of Bombay or in the Punjab. There are railways which have not yet been transferred; therefore expenditure on these would be fully advantageous. I think we might be a little cautious in giving very wide powers in the case of the non-transferred subjects, because there you may find yourselves up against criticism in time to come when these subjects are transferred that the money has not been spent wisely by the old bureaucracy. If that objection is raised to this decentralising of borrowing powers the reply is obvious: that it is not to restrict the powers of the local government in borrowing, but rather to widen the subjects which are subject to popular control in those provinces. Far from restricting the borrowing powers, I would say, widen the control powers. When the Rules and Regulations under the Government of India Act are next revised, I hope we shall see complete autonomy given to the provinces, coupled with complete control over borrowing.

6.0 P.M.

Earl WINTERTON: The suggestions which my hon. and gallant Friend has made would require an Amendment of the 1919 Act. With regard to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young), I recognise that in this question of Indian finance and centralisation and decentralisation one must always regard the question in every succeeding decade from the point of view of what the situation in India is at the moment. In the case of this particular Clause we are only concerned with borrowing for railway and irrigation purposes. I do not understand how my hon. Friend brings in his argument in relation to this Clause.

Mr. YOUNG: I say, quite frankly, that my observations would have been more relevant to the following Clause.

Earl WINTERTON: I hope there will be some sort of understanding that, if I reply now to these criticisms, the same point will not be raised again on the next Clause. As regards the railways, no question of decentralisation arises. With regard to other general matters, take, for example, irrigation, I am sure my right hon. Friend must be aware that there is now provided under the law an opportunity for those provinces to borrow with the permission of the Government of India
and the Secretary of State, and in point of fact there have been provincial loans in India for all sorts of purposes. There are many hon. Members in this House who are more familiar with Indian finance than I am, but I am sure they will agree with me when I say that these loans have been exceedingly successful. It is quite true that recently in the case of a good many undertakings, such as the big undertaking which is now being carried out by the Government of Bombay, it has been found more satisfactory for various reasons for Bombay to borrow this money from the Government of India rather than by placing a separate loan upon the market That is due to various reasons, one of which is that although there is no legal reason why the authorities should not authorise the Government of Bombay to put its loans on the market, there are reasons well known to many hon. Members, into which I need not enter at the present moment, which make it more convenient to borrow from the Government of India. Lately it has been found more advantageous to borrow through the Government of India. I hope my hon. Friends will be satisfied with that explanation. In conclusion may I say that all these matters are always considered in the light of what is the best thing to do in the circumstances?

Mr. MILNE: I do not think the position is quite that which has been stated by hon. Members opposite. The fact is, that it would be impossible for the Provinces of India to raise loans in the general market in India from time to time for their own purposes. You have in Bombay the largest market for this purpose, and almost every loan, or a very large proportion of it, has been raised in Bombay. But if there was too much of this kind of thing, the Indian market would be exhausted. For practical purposes, all this business must be under the control of the Government of India. It is correct to say that loans have been raised by the Provinces in India, but it is not correct to say that they have been raised in this country. Bombay has a large development loan, but it would be impossible for the Province of Madras to raise all the money required without reference to the Government of India. Bombay might be raising too large sums for development, and then other Provinces would suffer in consequence. The
Government of India, of course, should always have the last say as to where the loans should be raised.
I wish to allude to one or two points about the raising of money for railways. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that the Acworth Committee proposed two very definite changes. The first one was that the system under which budgeting for railway finance in previous years in India had been carried on, in connection with railway finance, should be entirely separated from the Budget of India for other purposes. That recommendation was not accepted by the Legislature Assembly of India in 1921. The Acworth Committee further suggested that the railway finance should be a separate thing, that the Government of India should raise money for railway purposes, and the profits of the railways were to be kept separate and devoted to the provision of facilities for a reduction of the rates on goods, passengers, and so on.
The second thing was that they wanted an end put to the ridiculous system which has existed for many years by which the money which was not spent in one financial year lapsed. That recommendation, was accepted, and it was laid down that the Railway Commissioners should have a fixed programme ahead for a period of years, and that policy has now been adopted. That being the case you are now in the position that the railways know exactly what they have to do. They can make their plans ahead; they know that they will have proper support for their plans for the enlargement of railways and the increase of rolling-stock, and that is all to the good. Up to the year 1900, or perhaps later than that, the railways returned to the Indian Government a very large sum of money every year, and they were very profitable undertakings. I think we might say that during those years India was the only country one might turn to as an example of the success of the nationalisation of railways, although the railways in India are not nationalised at all, but a great many of them are under State control. The position now is that, owing to the War and other causes in the last five or six years, the return has fallen steadily, and now those railways are a burden to the taxpayer. This point is brought out prominently in the Inchcape Report,
although these railways in the past have been profitable undertakings. Of course, it is possible to develop them far more than has been the case up to date. We want to develop more the feeder line system; these railways can be built very cheaply, and the money can be raised in India, and in that way the heavy strain of the railway budget will be very much less. India has still to get permission to raise loans, and that is not the case in any other part of our Empire. I think it is perhaps unfair that India should have to come to this country to ask permission to borrow at all. I do not see why India should not come to the British money market when it suits her; and I think it would have done the greatest harm to India if the Amendment put down to-day had been accepted. I am certain that under the conditions which exist in India she looks for freedom, and she looks also to be treated as well and as freely as any other part of the Empire, and the quicker we do away with the system under which she has to come here for permission to raise money the better.

Clauses 4 (Power to raise fifteen million pounds for the general purposes of the Government of India) and 5 (Issue of Bonds) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to redeem securities at a premium, etc.)

The power given to the Secretary of State by this Act to raise money by means of stock or other securities shall be deemed to include the power to provide for redemption of stock or securities at a premium, and the power to arrange for giving an option (subject to such conditions and on such terms as he may determine, and with or without payment of any further consideration) to holders of stock or securities to take new stock or securities in lieu thereof and to create stock or securities for the purpose, and any stock or securities surrendered for the purpose of exchange shall be cancelled.
Any stock or securities created for the purpose of an exchange under this Section shall not be taken into account in calculating the nominal amount of securities authorised to be issued under this Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Clause seems rather to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said in regard to the
previous Clause. It seems that we have a right to veto the Government of India on these matters in regard to loans, and according to this Clause we can interfere with the terms on which they give securities. What is contained in this Clause seems to me to be rather a survival of the days of Warren Hastings. It seems to me to be putting unnecessary details in the Bill to deal with such questions as how they should make arrangements for paying these loans.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is only permissive.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That only accentuates the fact that we are still exercising these powers of veto over India finance. I do not want to oppose the Clause, but I am not quite certain, for instance, whether the Australian Loan is a trustee security or not.

Sir F. BANBURY: Only under certain circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe Canadian loans are trustee securities. We do not have Bills like this for our Dominions, and I think this rather accentuates what I have endeavoured to point out, that they are quite out of date. I hope it will not be many years before they are declared to be undesirable.

Earl WINTERTON: This has nothing whatever to do with imposing any restrictions on the Government of India. As I explained previously, the Secretary of State has general responsibility. It is necessary to publish certain conditions in the Bill which will make the stock of a certain character. It is not a question of imposing restrictions on the Government of India, but it is a matter of carrying out its ordinary financial policy. Clause 6 provides power for exchanging one form of security for another, but there is nothing whatever to restrict, in the sense of taking away, any rights which the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks the Government of India or the people of India may have. The Secretary of State is the authority responsible for raising the loan in this country and the Clause simply prescribes that the ordinary methods may be adopted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I suppose if I were to say to the Noble Lord, "You can go out of that door
across Palace Yard," he would be properly annoyed, but it is the sort of thing which is indicated by this particular Clause.

Clauses 7 (Transfer books of Capital Stock), 8 (Nominal amount of securities to be issued), 9 (Application of enactments 56 and 57 Vic. c. 70), 10 (Saving), and 11 (Provision as to Members of the House of Commons, 22 Geo. 3, c. 45, 41 Geo. 3, c. 52) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.


PART I.


1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far continued.
Amending Acts.


(1)







46 & 47 Vict. c. 60
…
The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883.
The whole Act
…
…
48 & 49 Vict. c. 77.







49 & 50 Vict. c. 59.








54 & 55 Vict. c. 48.








54 & 55 Vict. c. 71.








55 & 56 Vict. c. 7.








59 & 60 Vict. c. 53.








61 & 62 Vict. c. 37.








3 Edw. 7. c. 37.








6 Edw. 7. c. 37.








7 Edw. 7. c. 44.








9 Edw. 7. c. 42.








1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 19.








4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 32.








8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 20.








9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 55.


(2)







58 & 59 Vict. c. 21.
…
The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) 4ct, 1895.
The whole Act.
—


(3)







4 Edw. 7. c. 24.
…
The Wifeless Telegraphy Act, 1904.
The whole Act.
—


(4)







7 Edw. 7. c. 55
…
The London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907.
As to the abolition of the privileged cab system, section two.
—


(5)







1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 55.
…
The National Insurance Act, 1911.
Section forty-two
…
…
3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 37.







4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 57.








4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 81.








7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 62.








10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 10.


(6)







2 & 3 Geo. 5. c. 2
…
The Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912.
The whole Act.
—


(7)







4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 3
…
The Grey Seals Protection Act, 1914.
The whole Act.
—


(8)







4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 78
…
The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914.
So far as it relates to orders made by any court before the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.
6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 13.




6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 18.





7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 25.





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 64





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 5.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Continuance of Acts in Schedule) and 2 (Short title and application to Ireland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How fat continued.
Amending Acts.


(9)





6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 12
…
The Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916.
Section five, except paragraph (a); Sections six, seven, nine, and twelve; Section thirteen, except subsection (6); Sections fourteen, twenty-one and twenty-two, and subsection (1) of section twenty-four.
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 12.


(10)





6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 55
…
The Local Government (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1916.
The whole Act
…
…
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 12.


(11)





7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 19
…
The Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1917.
The whole Act
…
…
12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 2.


(12)





8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 23
…
The Juries Act, 1918
…
Section seven
…
…
12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 2.


(13)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 35
…
The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919.
Section twenty-five
…
12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 16.


(14)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 60
…
The Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland) Act, 1919.
Section twenty-two.
—


(15)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 92
…
The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.
Section one.
—


(16)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 97
…
The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.
Sections one and two
…
12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 52.


(17)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 47
…
The Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920.
So far as it authorises the making, or revoking in whole or in part, of Parts I and III of the Sale of Food Order, 1921, and provides for the enforcement and imposes penalties for the breach thereof.
—


(18)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 57
…
The Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920.
The whole Act.
—


(19)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 58
…
The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920.
The whole Act
…
…
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 60.


(20)





11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 66
…
The National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921.
The whole Act.
—


(21)





12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 22
…
The Summer Time Act, 1922.
The whole Act.
—


PART II.


(22)





8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 34
…
The Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918.
So far as it relates to tramway undertakings.
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 14.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out paragraph (1).
Hon. Members will observe that this Amendment also covers an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) whom I do not see in his place, but I dare say we are both actuated by exactly the same motives. The object of the Amendment is to leave out the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, and the various amending Acts subsequently passed. The Bill says that the whole Act shall be continued with its 15 amending Acts. The second Clause of the Bill, referring to Ireland, says:
This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland in so far as it deals with any enactment relating to a subject with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has not power to make laws, but subject to this provision this Act shall not apply to Ireland.
In any case, if I read the Act aright, no part of the Schedule or any part of the Acts to be continued shall apply to Southern Ireland. Therefore this particular Act which is being continued can only apply to Northern Ireland in so far as the Parliament of Northern Ireland has no right to legislate on that subject. Surely to goodness the Parliament of Northern Ireland will have a right to deal with labour. I well remember the Act constituting that Parliament going through this House. I would ask why is it necessary to continue the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, and why 40 years later is it to be continued? Let me remind the Committee what this Labourers Act is. It is a very long Bill and a very
complicated one. It contains, I think, some 21 Clauses. It deals with the sanitary laws, the sanitary authorities, with all sorts of local government bodies in Ireland and with the labourers. I have seen myself in Ireland much of the fruit of this particular Act. I have seen the many new cottages which constitute a very handsome monument to the wisdom of this House in 1883. But what have they to do with us in 1923? I cannot imagine and I am anxious to know what explanation the Government can give us on that point.
The Act goes on to describe the sanitary schemes that may be carried through and what powers the sanitary authorities shall have. It deals with the tenements of agricultural labourers, with additions to the holdings of agricultural labourers, and with the letting of hereditaments, etc. It gives power to purchase land. It gives power for the raising of money for that purpose by mortgage or otherwise; it provides for advances to local bodies administering the Act, and it provides also for the audit of accounts, and so on. I think I have said enough to prove that it is a very complicated Act. The Act was amended in the reign of the late lamented Queen Victoria no fewer than seven times. In the reign of King Edward VII it was amended four times, and during the present reign it has also been amended four times. I think hon. Members will agree that as the Measure is of so very complicated and far-reaching a character we ought to have some adequate explanation why it is
considered necessary to continue this Act under the totally different conditions that obtain to-day in Ireland. I see in his place a former Chief secretary, the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who, no doubt, knows very much more about Ireland than I do—of course, from the Government side. I should like to know how much of the Act was operative during his tenure of office; how much of it was being worked by those rebel local authorities in Ireland who were defying the powers of the Executive and of Dublin Castle. The right hon. Gentleman passed his burden on to Sir Hamar Greenwood, and things went from bad to worse. Bad as the conditions were in Ireland under the regime of my right hon. Friend—and I do not blame him for that, because he inherited them from his predecessor—they were infinitely worse under Sir Hamar Greenwood, and I think I would not be far out in saying that no part of this Act really was operative over large areas in Southern Ireland, and, in certain areas in Northern Ireland, I do not think much could have been done in that way. I see several hon. Members from Northern Ireland opposite, and the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten), in particular, who, I dare say, will be able to correct any misstatement I may make. I approach this matter in an inquiring spirit, and I repeat that I cannot understand why it is necessary to continue this Act and to spend our time this afternoon in examining the reasons for its continuance, when very important matters remain to be discussed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Neither the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) nor myself will, however, allow any legislation to go through this House unless we are satisfied that it is necessary, and unless the explanations from the Home Secretary, from hon. Members from Northern Ireland, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, are full and satisfactory, I hope the Committee will suport me in my proposal to exclude this Act from those continued by this Bill.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I trust I shall be able to satisfy
the spirit of inquiry in which this Amendment has been moved. The Acts in question form a Code under which the local authorities in Ireland are empowered to provide cottages for labourers and they are necessary for that reason. They have been continued from year to year under this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill since 1917, and, since operations are still going on under those Acts, it is necessary to continue them as long as those operations continue. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why Northern Ireland could not be left to deal with this question by legislation in its own Parliament. The reason is that the finances of local authorities for the purposes of these Acts are met out of the Land Purchase Fund, and are repayable by the local authorities to the Land Commission. The general subject matter of the Land Purchase Acts is excluded from the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and that is the reason why it is necessary to continue these Acts as expiring laws. The provision of cottages for labourers is still going on, and the Acts are necessary for that purpose. It is not possible for the Government of Northern Ireland itself to legislate in the matter, owing to the fact that the financing of it has to be done through the Land Purchase Act.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has not that been transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland?

Mr. D. REID: No, we do not know anything about it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Labourers (Ireland) Act was passed long before the Land Purchase Act, and the matter seems rather obscure. There may be a perfectly good explanation, but the Home Secretary has not made it clear to me, though he may have made it clear to others. I should like to know how it is that we are still responsible for this finance, and why it is linked to the Land Purchase Act.

Captain DIXON: I am a little surprised at the animosity which the hon. and gallant Gentleman shows to Ulster—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must protest against that. There is no animosity at all. I am here as an English Member looking after the English tax-
payers' money. The last thing I want to do is to show any hostility towards the part of Ireland to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs.

Captain DIXON: I am very glad to hear that. I was going to say that I was surprised that what I looked upon as the animosity of the hon. and gallant Member had gone to such an extent as to attempt to stop the building of labourers' cottages in Ulster. It does not cost the British taxpayer one farthing. Ulster, so far from taking money from England, gives money to England. In fact, I think we are handing over something like £4,000,000 to England this year, and if any money, over and above what we have a right to expend, should be expended on these cottages, we shall pay for it. By the passing of this Act we were given power to take from the annuities which are paid under the Land Purchase Act, money for the purpose of building cottages for labourers. That is what it means, but it does not cost you anything. If you support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it simply means that, after December of this year, we cannot build a single labourer's cottage, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Member desires that; at least, I hope he does not. If the Bill is allowed to go through as it stands, we shall carry on our building of labourers' cottages, we shall borrow money for that purpose from the annuities which come in under the Land Purchase Act, and we shall settle up in our ordinary settlement with the Treasury at the end of the year. At the present moment a Commission is sitting, making out what we owe to the Treasury and what the Treasury owe to us. In any case, however, we not only pay our way in Ulster, but we pay you a very large sum of money, amounting to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I am very much surprised at what the hon. and gallant Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon) has said, because I always understood that Ulster was a sort of Heaven upon earth, a sort of a little Paradise in which there was no need to carry out the expensive improvements detailed in the Act of 1883, and in the subsequent Acts, for the improvement of the condition of the working classes. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will not charge me with
being hostile to Ulster, and I think he will gather, when I have concluded my remarks, that I am making them in a very friendly spirit. I desire to ask a question of the Home Secretary, who, I know, has a healthy fear of litigation and legal proceedings, and I am glad to see that the Attorney-General is now present. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten and satisfy me upon one matter. Under Clause 2 of this Bill we expressly exclude our right to legislate under this Bill in respect of any matter in respect of which Northern Ireland, has the power to legislate, and in doing that it seems to me that we are excluding, with one exception which I will mention directly, almost the whole of the Act of 1883. I am not sure from a legal standpoint that we do not, by the words of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill, exclude the whole of the powers under the Act of 1883, and also some very substantial powers under the subsequent Acts which are dealt with in the Schedule to this present Bill.
I submit that it is not necessary, for the purpose of continuing the building of these cottages, or, indeed, for the exercise of any of these powers under the Act of 1883, to include it in this Bill, with the one exception that we desire to bring in the financial measures that at present prevail for financing the building of these cottages. I am afraid that in this Bill we are not going upon the lines upon which the Government intend to proceed, and I shall be glad on that point to hear the ruling of the Attorney-General. In my opinion this is a very unfortunate piece of legislation. We are dealing with a large number of complicated Acts which were passed into law at a time when the conditions prevailing between Northern Ireland and this country were totally different from those which prevail at the present time. Moreover, the conditions of the people generally, both in this country and in Ireland, are totally different now from what they were in 1883, and I very much doubt whether, if either this House or the Parliament of Northern Ireland had to consider at this date the many provisions comprised in those Acts, either House would be prepared again to pass those Acts. This is what I call slipshod legislation, and it is attended by all the dangers of slipshod legislation. It is easier for His Majesty's Government to pass a Bill of this kind without thinking out the situation—and I say this in the
interest both of this country and of Northern Ireland—it is easier to pass this Bill; which does not bring before the minds of Members of this House the circumstances and what we are legislating for, than to think out the situation as it exists at the present time and pass any further short Act which may be necessary for dealing with the particular circumstances referred to by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last.

Colonel NEWMAN: As a citizen of the Irish Free State, I should like to ask how the retention of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts applies to the Irish Free State. In regard to Northern Ireland the position, as was explained by the Home Secretary, is perfectly plain. The British Government have given the Irish Government a present of these Irish land annuities, and they are able, out of those annuities, to build these cottages. The Free State Government, as I understand, have at the present moment to collect the Land Commission annuities twice a year and pass them over to the British Government. What is the position with regard to the Irish Free State? The British taxpayer has most generously advanced, in past years, large sums of money in order that these cottages might be built all over Ireland. Has the Free State Government still to go on collecting these moneys which are due, and to pass them across to the British Exchequer, or is there to come a time for a general settlement between the Free State and the British Government, when some arrangement will be come to in regard both to the Labourers (Ireland) Acts and to the Land Purchase annuities?

Mr. PRINGLE: I think the inclusion of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, requires some further explanation than has yet been given from the Government Bench. It is quite true, as the Home Secretary said, that land purchase generally was a reserved service under the Government of Ireland Act, but that, I think, is not quite an adequate reason for the inclusion of the Act of 1883 in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is true that Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Government of Ireland Act provides that:
The general subject matter of the Acts relating to land purchase in Ireland shall be a reserved matter unless and until other-
wise provided by any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom relating to land purchase in Ireland, passed in the present or any future Session of that Parliament." Then there is a proviso to this effect:
Provided that this reservation shall not include the powers and duties of the Irish Land Commission with respect to the collection and recovery of purchase annuities.
Now, apparently, the collection and recovery of purchase annuities by the Irish Land Commission is handed over to Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act. Then I come to the question of annuities at a later stage of the Government of Ireland Act, and I find in Clause 26, which contains provisions as to land purchase annuities, that in Sub-section (5) we have certain definitions:
For the purposes of this Act the expression 'purchase annuities,' in addition to purchase annuities as defined in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, includes annuities for the repayment …. and annuities for the repayment of advances made under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
This has nothing to do with the Act of 1883. At the time of the Act of 1883 there was no land purchase in existence. The system of paying land purchase annuities for the purpose of the Labourers Act was not, I think, decided on till one of the later Measures in the reign of Queen Victoria. In the same way there is a further reference to the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, in the latter part of this Sub-section. Under these circumstances it is important that we should know clearly what exactly is reserved and what is not reserved, because the powers and duties of the Irish Land Commission with respect to the collection and recovery of purchase annuities are not handed over to the North of Ireland Government. Consequently I fail to see why the Labourers Act should be a reserved service to the Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon) seemed to think this Amendment was conceived in some spirit of antagonism to Northern Ireland. Nothing was further from my mind. I simply put the Amendment down with a view to knowing exactly where we are, and I think the hon. Member will agree with me that it is important that we should know exactly where we are. It is a very complicated situation, as I have shown by the quotations from the Statute. It is therefore essential that we should know where the responsibility of this Parliament begins
and ends and where that of Northern Ireland begins and ends likewise.
There is a further question which was put forward by the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) with regard to the change which has been made by the creation of the Irish Free State. What is the position in regard to cottages which have been built in the Free State and the advances made for the purpose of building them, and what is the relation of these advances to the Irish Land Purchase Annuities? These things should also be cleared up. There was one other matter which the Home Secretary raised, and that was as to the further building of cottages. I understand the Land Commission is operating in Ulster, and it collects the annuities. Would it not be possible for the Northern Parliament to deal with the matter directly without any intervention here at all? I do not see any reason why not. It seems to me to be purely a North of Ireland matter. I think they are building their own cottages. The position is that the Northern Government is supervising the building of cottages, and an advance for the purpose of building cottages is made out of annuities collected in Ireland by the Land Commission, which is a service handed over to the Northern Government. If in all these respects the Northern Government has power over the matter, why is it necessary that we should re-enact every year in this Bill the provisions of the Irish Labourers Act, 1853? I think it is important that the Government should make a statement on the matter, and if it is as complicated as I have suggested, surely it will be better to hand the whole matter over to Northern Ireland and allow them to deal with it as the Land Commission deals with advances. Obviously the Irish Free State Government has cut adrift from this country altogether in this matter and we should know on what financial conditions it has cut adrift. Is this one of the elements in the financial situation between the Imperial Government and the Irish Free State Government that is left to be cleared up, and which is to be referred to some Committee of Arbitration to be appointed at some indefinite date in the future, if ever? I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give an answer.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): My right hon. Friend
has had to leave the House for an important engagement, and I am rather sorry because I cannot do anything else but repeat what he has said. I think he explained this provision very fully. The difficulty is that we have to work under an Act of Parliament. Under Section 9 (3) of the Government of Ireland Act, this question of land and the payment to local authorities of certain funds is not capable of legislation at all by the Northern Parliament. It is entirely within the purview of this Imperial Parliament, and therefore if you do not put this provision into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the whole of this machinery will fall to the ground. I am sure the hon. Member does not want that. These Acts which are set out in the Schedule form the whole code under which these issues of money take place, and without those Acts those issues of money to local authorities cannot take place at all. A new point was raised by the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman). I think he forgets that all those questions have been handed over to the Free State. We have no longer got any power whatever and therefore really this Bill does not touch the Irish Free State at all.

Colonel NEWMAN: This country has advanced money to build these cottages. Interest has to be paid on that money. The money is collected with interest. Does the Free State Government collect that money now and pay it across to this country? If it does not collect it, what happens?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is a question which can be raised at the proper time, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. The Bill only affects these particular Acts in so far as they relate to Northern Ireland.

Mr. PRINGLE: The only thing that put me in a difficulty was that, under the Section the hon. Gentleman has referred it, it is true the general subject matter of the Acts relating to land purchase in Ireland was to be a reserved matter. Then there is a proviso containing two paragraphs, the second of which provides that the reservation shall not include the powers and duties of the Irish Land Commission with respect to the collection and recovery of purchase annuities.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I ought to have dealt with that point. The hon.
Member is quite right if he refers to the collection of annuities, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the money out of the Land Purchase Fund. That lies with the Imperial Parliament. The Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot legislate on the subject.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (3).
This is a very complicated Schedule and there are a number of Acts included in it the whole effect of which one could not appreciate. The Postmaster-General is not here, but the Financial Secretary, who has only recently quitted that office, in which he proved himself so efficient, will be able to answer my question. This is a very important Act which has been continued from year to year since it was passed, and important provisions are laid down in Section 1:
A person shall not establish any wireless telegraph station or instal or work any apparatus for wireless telegraphy in any place or on board any British ship except under and in accordance with a licence granted in that behalf by the Postmaster-Genera I.
This provision is very important in relation to what is happening in the present year. First of all, we have the whole question of broadcasting arising. I believe if this Act were not renewed in this Schedule the Postmaster-General, in the first place, could not deal with licences in connection with broadcasting at all, and in the second place, he would not be able to make the contract which is contemplated with the Marconi Company. That is only a surmise which I have reached myself, but I want to know whether that exactly is the position, because if it is so, this is obviously the only opportunity we shall have of getting any information from the Post Office in these important matters.
7.0 P.M.
We are told that this House is to have no control over any arrangements which are to be made under either of these heads. First of all, the Committee dealing with broadcasting may not report before Parliament rises, a new arrangement with regard to licences may be made by the Post Office without any consultation with the House, and, furthermore, a most important contract may be made for wire-
less communication with the Marconi Company over which Parliament will have no control at all. As I understand the position, the contemplated contract with the Marconi Company is not one which involves a charge upon the public purse and, unlike the former Marconi contract of unhappy memory, will not, therefore, require the sanction of the House, and there will be no opportunity, as there was then to have it referred to a Select Committee of this House. In other words, if this Act is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the Postmaster-General will be uncontrolled. The probability is that this years Supply will have been passed, the Post Office Vote will thereby have gone from the control of the House of Commons, and therefore there will be no opportunity for this House to enter into these contracts or arrangements or to criticise or supervise them. I am raising this question, therefore, in order that before, by including the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904 in this Schedule, we give these powers to the Postmaster-General we should have a statement from him as to what he contemplates in both connections; first of all, in regard to future broadcasting arrangements, and, secondly, in regard to this new Marconi contract. I think hon. Members on the other side will agree with me that if my construction of this matter is right, and if the powers of the Post Office are determined in that way, this is the only opportunity the House has to ascertain Post Office policy, and that, therefore, we are entitled to avail ourselves of it.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I do not think the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was right in saying that this is the only opportunity he has to raise the two points to which he has referred. They can be raised, I think, and much more properly, on the Estimates which will be before the House on Tuesday next.

Mr. PRINGLE: Are the Post Office Estimates to be taken then?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Yes; in the ordinary way the Post Office Estimates are to be put down for discussion on Tuesday. I think it would be unwise, and indeed unfair to hon. Members who expect a discussion then, if I
entered now into either of the points the hoe. Gentleman has raised; but I would like to ask the Committee not to support this Amendment, and I dare say the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw it.

Mr. PRINGLE: We have no assurance, of course, that when the Post Office Vote is taken this will not be crowded out by other matters. On many former occasions the time has been occupied, almost exclusively by the conditions of Post Office servants, and I have no doubt that important questions will be raised in that connection. I should like to have an assurance that there will be an opportunity to discuss this when the Vote is taken. I was not aware that the Vote was put down for Tuesday at all. I assumed that some other Vote was to be taken next week, and it was on the assumption that the Post Office Vote was not to be taken this year at all that I had raised this issue.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am willing, if the hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw his Amendment, to make the observations I ought to make. I cannot give any assurance with regard to the Debate on Tuesday next. It is not a matter in my hands but is in the hands of the House. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to rise he sometimes succeeds in catching eye of the Chair—

Mr. PRINGLE: Somewhat, infrequently.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: —and he may be successful again. He will then be able to raise these questions, and if I get an opportunity to reply, obviously I shall do my best to answer all the questions raised. I am going to ask the Committee to reject this Amendment because, as it may remember, this Act which I am asking shall be continued for another year is the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, under which the control of wireless telegraphy is maintained. If this were not in operation there would be nothing to prevent anybody setting up wireless telegraphy in this country, nothing to regulate wave-lengths, and the confusion would be so great that no one would have the benefit of wireless telegraphy at all. There would be grave risk of naval signals being interrupted, the Admiralty would not be able to communicate with ships at sea, and it is
absolutely esential for the orderly progress of wireless development that this Act should be continued for another year.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Postmaster-General does not wish to be taken seriously when he says that he does not want to answer now, because a Supply day is to be taken for the Post Office Vote next Tuesday. I do not think that is quite the way in which to treat questions raised on this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I am sure he is aware that a Committee was set up to look into this question of expiring laws last year, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), whose office escapes me for the moment, was a Member of the Committee, which, as I pointed out the other night, drew attention to the fact that these Acts were used as a means to permit Ministers to adopt the slovenly habit of relying on these continuing Bills instead of bringing in fresh legislation. Here we have a case in point. When this Bill was brought before the House of Commons in 1904 the whole matter was experimental. This is 19 years afterwards, and everyone knows that it is necessary for every country to have some control. We must have some system of licensing or some other method of regulating it or the evils to which the Postmaster-General referred will come about, the ordinary signals of the Admiralty will be interfered with, you will have chaos, and so on. Really, what ought to be done is to bring in fresh legislation on wireless telegraphy altogether, and not simply to continue this Act year by year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We have one advantage, and that is that we are enabled to raise certain questions, and I do not think it is quite good enough for the Postmaster-General to say that we must not discuss them now, but should do so on the Estimates. Very often Estimates are not discussed on the days on which they are supposed to be taken. We may have some crisis in international affairs, and the Foreign Office Vote be put down instead; or there may be some unfortunate occurrence at home and a Minister's Vote be put down for discussion instead. Here we have an opportunity for raising questions, and I shall be very glad if the Postmaster-General will answer them; otherwise, I think the House will be losing an opportunity to raise a matter
of some importance. Furthermore, if we can get answers now we shall have time to think over them, examine them, and bring them up again on the Estimates if they are unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman, as much as anyone else, wishes to see the House of Commons used as a means of probing into dark places, finding out cases in any way under suspicion, clearing up doubtful matters—though I do not suggest there is anything in his Department in that category.
Therefore I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) said in two directions. Firstly, cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us here and now before we continue the discussion what further progress he has made with the broadcasting question? I am not going into the details, because I would only be repeating previous arguments. But the matter is in a state of flux, and I invite him to tell us what progress has been made. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with the matter some time ago, and told us in effect that he was examining the whole of the very difficult situation. I do not think we have had a statement from the new Postmaster-General on broadcasting. It is a very important matter affecting a great many people, it is much in the public eye, and I think we should appreciate very much a statement from the Postmaster-General as to his views on the great broadcasting problem. What is he going to do? Does he see a way out? Has he come to any arrangement, and what does he propose to do with the people who, I understand, number 40,000 or 50,000 up and down the country—some, I am sorry to say, among my own acquaintances—who have not taken out a licence, and do not intend to do so, because they object to the present arrangement, or are dissatisfied with the programme of music, and so on. What is the Postmaster-General going to do with these cases, and can he tell us briefly what is his intention?
Secondly, I would like to ask him to say what is the position as regards the Imperial wireless chain? We had the matter brought up at question time, and what was principally ascertained then was that in order to make a wireless station at Rugby 800 acres of land, which, I suppose, is good agricultural land, are
to be taken in order that there should be plenty of room for the expansion of this wireless station. They are not being at all modest in the acquisiton of land, and I do know that whoever is up there in the early stages of this work will have some very good partridge shooting next September. This is as far as we have got—800 acres have been acquired at Rugby. I should like to know what was the price paid; was the Land Acquisition Act used to see that the taxpayer was not robbed; why was so much land required; and have we finally decided upon a programme?

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is in order in discussing the admnistration of a certain Act, whether all that is before the Committee at the present moment is whether the Act shall or shall not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and whether it is not the case that the question of whether or not the Minister has badly or well administered that Act is not an argument that could be advanced for its exclusion from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order. I think this matter has been raised before, and that the Chair has ruled that where we are asked to continue an Act we are entitled to discuss whether it is necessary or whether the special conditions that existed when it was passed still prevail. I think, therefore, that I am perfectly in order in putting two very simple questions.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not discussing whether the Act is good or bad, but whether it has been properly or improperly administered by the Government?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect to such a master of procedure as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), I am not going into administrative details at all. What I am examining is what good the Act has done. Though the Act was passed in 1904, this great question of the Imperial wireless chain is still outstanding. There has been no authoritative statement as to how the matter stands and whether a programme has been decided on. Therefore, I am
entitled to show that unless the right hon. Gentleman satisfies the Committee, we need not discuss this Act.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is entitled to discuss what has taken place under the Act when the subject before the House is whether the Act should be renewed or not.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): May I point out, in reference to the question of the purchase of land which occurred while I was Postmaster-General, that that was done under the general powers of the Post Office and had nothing to do with the Act which we are now discussing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only mentioned that in passing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to the actual Act which we are asked to continue by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At the same time this Act was designed for such an emergency as the commercialisation of wireless telegraphy, and it has failed so far. The present Government has not been in office long, and I would not attack it on this matter, but give it every opportunity. But so far the position is one of chaos. In America they have been much more successful. We desire enlightenment in this matter, and we are entitled to have it now.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I do not think that the Postmaster-General has exaggerated the importance and, indeed, the necessity of passing this present Bill, so far as this particular Act is concerned. I would go further and say that probably no subject of such great importance as wireless could be brought before this House. Nevertheless, by this method of legislation we are continuing to operate, in a most important matter, under an Act which was passed as long ago as 1904. Wireless in other countries has made extraordinarily rapid progress, and it is certain that the Act passed in 1904 cannot be a proper Act to deal with the situation existing at the present day. Undoubtedly it is desirable that there should be legislation introduced in this House in
respect of wireless. Notwithstanding the importance of this matter, the Postmaster-General asks that we should continue an important Act—it is important, though it is old—though other legislation ought to be passed, and when he is asked for an explanation of what he proposes to do under the very Act which he is asking us to extend—and I would point out that he has power under that Act to embark upon transactions far more important than have been carried out before—he expresses amazement that he should be asked to do so.
I do not suppose that that surprises old Members of the House, but it is surprising to young Members like myself, and it will be surprising to people outside the House when they hear to-morrow that the Postmaster-General, having recovered his surprise and dismay, gets up and proposes that we should first of all pass the Measure under which he may use extraordinary powers, and says that, having passed that Measure, a week later we can discuss its merits, if we are fortunate enough to get an opportunity of doing so, on some Estimate which may or may not be relevant. I do not think that anybody who proposes to stand at the next Election would defend that as a reasonable explanation by the Postmaster-General, and, having seen his alarm, I would suggest that we should postpone the further consideration of this matter until he is able to take counsel with us. But whether that be so or not, I shall certainly not vote for the continuation of an Act on the proposition that we shall debate its merits a week after we pass it.

Mr. PRINGLE: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment I would point out that the Postmaster-General has assured us that the Post Office Estimates will be taken on Tuesday and, following the general practice, I assume that he will make a statement at the beginning of the Debate. Is the Committee to understand that, when he makes his statement in regard to the Post Office, he is going to make a statement on both the matters which I have raised in relation to wireless? It is only fair that we should get some assurance of the kind, and the Committee are entitled to ask that some such statement should be made.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not like to refuse to respond to an appeal
of that sort, even though I run the risk of the hon. Gentleman's friend finding other causes for being eloquent again.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have plenty more without that.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In answer to the hon. Member's first question I shall make a statement when I lay the Post Office Estimates before the Committee, but that statement I propose to make as short as possible so that I shall be able to reply in debate later on, and in that short statement there will be a statement with regard to broadcasting and the imperial wireless chain. But, so that hon. Gentlemen may not be misled, I warn them in advance that broadcasting, as they know, is now the subject of investigation by a Committee on which many Members of this House are sitting. If they have not made their report by Tuesday there will be very little which I can say usefully on that subject then. Neither can I say anything useful on the subject to-day. With regard to Empire wireless I can make a statement, but I can make no statement on Tuesday with regard to the contract which is not yet negotiated.

Captain BERKELEY: The Committee will surely not be satisfied with the statement made by the Postmaster-General. He has told us that only half a day will be available for discussing the Post Office Estimate. An enormous area of ground will be covered in discussing those Estimates, whereas now we have the proper occasion for discussing this specific problem of wireless. The House of Commons has the right, if it wishes to do so, to refuse to continue the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904. This is the proper occasion on which the Postmaster-General should make a full statement of the policy of his Department with regard to this great and essential public service. The right hon. Gentleman has approached this matter as though the making of a statement on this subject was a favour to the Committee. That is not so. It is the right on the part of the Committee to be fully informed on this matter, and it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to give us the information for which we ask. It is a novelty to new Members to find that a Cabinet Minister considers a matter of this kind merely as a subject of laughter.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are those among us who take the question more seriously.
This is not an intervention on my part made with the intention of prolonging Debate. It is an intervention—and I hope that my hon. Friends opposite will do me the justice to believe this—made solely in the hope of inducing the right hon. Gentleman to make some kind of statement now on the general problem of wireless for the information of the House and of the country. Every Member is aware of the great interest which this subject, particularly wireless telephony, is exciting throughout the country. Not long ago the whole Press of the country was full of the question of wireless telephony. The country will be looking to the Postmaster-General on this occasion now that the matter has been properly raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), to make some kind of broad and general statement as to the policy which he intends to pursue, or perhaps to inaugurate, in the Department of which he is the head. I hope he will change his mind. I do not wish to press him to make a statement in detail. He is in the position of being able to judge when such a statement can best be made. But in view of the enormous developments of the industry, of its great possibility and of the absorbing interest of the statement on the whole wireless question which was made to those who at a Committee meeting in this House had the privilege of being addressed by a great expert on this matter; and in view of the fact that the Government is asking us to reaffirm an Act which is a little out of date, I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to make some kind of general statement as to the policy which he intends to pursue with regard to wireless telephony, and to make it now.

Mr. HARRIS: There was a very singular remark made by the Postmaster-General in his short statement in reference to the contract that is being negotiated. He said that the terms were being negotiated and it would be impossible to state the terms to the Committee when the Post Office Vote came before it. That contract which is being negotiated by the Government is of more concern to the people of this country than any contract proposed on behalf of the Government. The question has been raised, and very properly. It was very undesirable
for ex-Ministers of the Crown to join the Board of a company that has direct Government relations—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can say anything about that. It has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: These subjects are of such vital importance that the House of Commons, before it goes into recess, should have an opportunity of discussing them. Wireless now has become almost a subject of domestic use. There is hardly a village in the country that has not wireless installations. The present arrangements between the various wireless organisations enables these organisations to insist that no instrument shall be used except those branded with a particular brand. This company realises its very great commercial opportunities, and undoubtedly it is trying to use every pressure on Members of this House to support the monopoly. One of their directors, for instance, was invited to the precincts of this House to address a Committee of the House of Commons to explain the operations of this particular company. He went so far as to invite, I think, 100 Members of Parliament—I was not included in the invitation, but I do not complain—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must really ask the hon. Member not to deal with this matter.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is in order to discuss a contract that is being negotiated in virtue of powers under Section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. The Postmaster-General has admitted that negotiations are still going on in relation to that contract. My hon. Friend, I submit, is entitled to refer to these negotiations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: He is entitled to refer to them, but not to dwell upon them.

Mr. HARRIS: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I have made out, I submit, the need for a full dress Debate on the wireless situation. I quite appreciate the difficulty of my right hon. Friend. He only lately succeeded to his new office. He had a great number of predecessors. It is very difficult, therefore, for him to pick up the wires, if I might suggest this to him. But if it is difficult for him to come to a conclusion, it is far more diffi-
cult for the House of Commons, who have great responsibilities to their electors, to do so. There is not a Member of Parliament who is not receiving correspondence from his constituency with reference to the unsatisfactory position of wireless as regards broadcasting and regarding facilities throughout the Empire. It is very necessary that, before the House rises, there should be a full and free discussion, and facts and figures should be placed on the Table of the House. The Minister should have an opportunity to explain his scheme. He has admitted that there is to be only half-a-day for explaining the Post Office Vote. On the Post Office Vote all sorts of grievances will be ventilated—wages, Sunday post, etc. There are 101 questions that involve the administration of the Post Office, and that being so, the right hon. Gentleman ought to agree that we have a day to discuss the problem, or that a new arrangement should be placed on the Table.

Mr. PRINGLE: I can understand that the right hon. Gentleman is being taken unawares and his not being able to make a statement in this Debate; but his assurances regarding Tuesday are not satisfactory. We were to have only half-a-day, and then it turns out that he is not able to deal with it at all. Therefore, the great opportunity which he held out to us—this opportunity of eliciting epoch-making information, it not to be given; there is not going to be any statement at all. It is the duty of the House of Commons, before the Recess, to have some public discussion. First of all, it should discuss the whole system of broadcasting and the position of licences affecting thousands of people all over the country. Then we have the question of Empire wireless, a matter equally important, and in view of what has passed before on this question, I think the Committee should have some information. But on the Estimates, we are told, the House is to know nothing. The matter is to be put, "still under negotiation." This is not satisfactory, and I hope that at least the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the Committee of Supply, on Tuesday, some clear indication of the policy he is pursuing, of the main features of the contract he hopes to conclude, so that if this matter is decided in Recess, when the House has no opportunity of dealing with
it, hon. Members will have an assurance that it is being dealt with on sound lines, that the public interest is being duly safeguarded, and that nothing is being sacrificed to a powerful private company which, of course, is in a position to exert very considerable influence in certain Government directions. It was because I knew there would be no opportunity in Committee that I desired to get some statement, and I regret that no statement has been made. We have no assurance that any statement will be made, and I submit that the House is leaving the matter in a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. There should be a real discussion before important decisions on policy are reached in relation to questions of so much importance to the country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. PRINGLE: There is another Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot take any Amendments which are not on the Paper.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to ask by what Standing Order an Amendment which is not on the Paper is excluded and by what practice this decision is reached.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Under Standing Order 27A I have power to select which Amendments I like.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to make a submission to you, Sir, on a point of Order. Until, Sir, you know what the Amendment is, is it possible to decide as to the merits of the Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On this occasion I have decided not to accept any Amendments except those which are on the Paper.

Mr. PRINGLE: I merely wish to make a submission. May I point out that No. 5 in the Schedule is the National Insurance Act, 1911? That extends and continues Section 42, but Section 42 of the National Insurance Act deals with the whole subject of deposit insurance. That is a subject which there has been no opportunity of discussing since the War. This form of insurance was introduced only as a temporary makeshift move, for the purpose of dealing with people who could not immediately come
into assurance but could come in ultimately, and in these circumstances, this Bill offers an opportunity of obtaining a statement from the Government on that matter. I submit that, in these circumstances, a statement should be elicited from the Government.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I would like to support this. It is of some importance, and it has been produced on many occasions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All these things were known before the Paper was printed, just as much as they are known now.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is impossible for private Members to read all the Acts in time. When, in the course of further researches, an hon. Member finds a matter of public interest, is he to be excluded simply because it is not on the Paper? What is he to do?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

Mr. F. GRAY: I take it that there is to be no Amendment this evening, whatever it may be, unless it appears on the Paper?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (8).
I have some oil in my lamp, and I propose to set it alight. I wish only to get a little information from the Home Secretary as to why he wishes, particularly, to continue the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, so far as it relates to orders made by any Courts before the 31st day of August, 1922, as amended by 6 and 7 Geo. 5, c. 13, and no less than five other Acts. What orders made under the Court are still operative? I am glad to see two of the Law Officers of the Crown in their places, and they may be able to explain this matter if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not all the necessary information on the case. I wish to know particularly which orders of the Court are referred to in this Schedule? The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, is the name, and its title is as follows:
An Act to give, in connection with the present War, further powers to Courts in relation to the remedies for the recovery of money, and in relation to other similar matters.
The date was 31st August, 1914, when, of course, the House of Commons naturally gave all power to the Executive, and I dare say this Act passed through practically without any Amendment at all, or with very little discussion, like most of those Acts. Therefore, it is not like one of the Acts passed, for example, in 1904, such as we have been discussing, or in 1883, such as we opened the discussion with, when Parliament was Parliament, and when the Executive was vigilantly watched by the Opposition, of whichever party it was composed. This Act was passed in the excitement and emotion of the early days of the War, and now that we have come to the rather disappointing days of peace it is necessary to see what is being carried on under the guise of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to perpetuate War-time legislation. Let us examine some of the provisions of this Act which it is proposed to continue. Take Sub-section (7) of Section (1), which is a very curious Sub-section. It says:
(7) Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or power of pawnbrokers to deal with pledges"—
On the one hand, the gentleman of the three balls, the pawnbrokers. But that is not all, that is only the first part of the Section—
or give any power to stay execution or defer the operation of any remedies of a creditor in the case of a sum of money payable by, or recoverable from, the subject of a Sovereign or State at war with His Majesty.
Why honest, respectable pawnbrokers should be included in the same Sub-section as the enemies of 31st August, 1914, or enemy Sovereigns, I cannot understand at all. Nevertheless, this Act, with its various four or five amending Acts, is being continued now, in so far as unknown orders are made by various Courts, up to a certain date in August, 1922.
I could point out many more anomalies in the Act, and many more sentences from Sections showing how the Act was hastily passed, which was, of course, inevitable under the circumstances of the time. It is, however, necessary that we should know what the orders are, whom they affect, and why it is necessary to continue them in 1923, when we are just on the point of concluding peace, some seven years later, with the last of our late enemies, the Government of the Sublime
Porte. Why is it necessary to keep on the powers passed by this House in a great hurry on 31st August, 1914? What is the reason? I invite the Home Secretary or one of his assistants, or even the hon. and gallant Member for Skipton (Lieut.-Colonel Roundell), if he has been put in charge of this matter, to satisfy us on this point. It should be our aim and object to wipe out all the War-time legislation, and we ought to look with great suspicion and great care on any proposals to continue it.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has expressed his suspicion of War-time legislation, and he certainly has shown that he has a very suspicious, if not a very intelligent, appreciation of the meaning of this particular provision. I can explain it to the Committee in a very few words. Under the Act of 1914,—and under later amending Acts—power was given to the Courts of this country to stay execution on a judgment, first of all in respect of pre-War contracts, and by later Acts in respect of contracts made by various men who were called out for service and who, by reason of that fact, were unable sometimes to fulfill their obligations. Accordingly, a number of orders have been made, some of them in the High Court, and far more in the County Court, under which execution has been stayed on judgments, so long as instalments are paid which were fixed by the Courts, so as to meet the capacity of the various debtors. The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act originally was to last for six months after the termination of the War. That was afterwards extended to 12 months after the termination of the War, and therefore it would have come to an end on 31st August, 1922. This provision appeared in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act last year, and this year it is put in again. The reason why it is put in now is because, unless it were in, as soon as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act came to an end, the result would be that there would no longer be any legal operative effect in any orders made staying execution so long as payments were made by instalments.
The result would be that although these judgment debtors were complying with the orders made in the County Court or the High Court, as the case might be, and were paying up their in-
stalments month by month, yet the moment the Act ceased to have any operative effect there would be a right in the creditor to exercise his Common Law rights and to levy execution for the full balance of the debt. I think it is obvious, and everybody in the Committee will agree, that that would be very hard lines and very unfair to the judgment debtors in question. The provision which is inserted here is merely in order to prevent that happening, and to ensure that so long as judgment debtors go on paying the instalments which they have been ordered to pay, the execution shall not issue against them. The order is in the form that execution shall not issue so long as certain instalments are kept up. I submit that that is an order which nobody would wish not to continue to operate, and I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he might fairly withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: Before my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws, I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the fairness with which he has explained this position. There are two questions I should like to put to him. First of all, we see by column 3 of the Schedule that this only relates to orders made by any Court before 31st August, 1922. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how long he expects it to be necessary to retain these provisions covering such orders? There is another consideration which ought to be taken into account. These orders preventing execution were made, in the main, during the War, or immediately after the War, in relation to persons who had been adversely affected by the War. The conditions of those persons may have very much changed in the interval. It is quite true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that if the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act were not included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that execution might issue, but still it would be a matter for the discretion of the County Court Judge.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: indicated dissent.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to ask whether, in the event of this Act falling out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the discretion of the County Court Judge
would not come into play? If it comes into play, the question is, whether any good object is being served by its continuance? That is the question I should like him to answer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As to how long the orders will go on, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how long they will run. We have caused inquiries to be made at the County Courts, however, and have ascertained that there are still a number which are extant, and so we have included this Act in the Bill this year. It will be an expensive matter to find out exactly for how long the orders will run, but we shall find out next year if it is necessary to go on any longer. As to the other point, I think the limit is, that where there is any judgment of over £20, there is no discretion in the County Court Judge, and the creditor has a right to execution. The only right to stay execution on such judgments is that given by this Act, and, therefore, if the order made under this Act were done away with, there would be an absolute right in the creditor to execute.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his fair reply. It has completely allayed my suspicions, and even my intelligence has been able to grasp the reason for the inclusion of this Act. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAM WATSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (9), in column 3, after the word "and" ["twenty-one and twenty-two"], to insert the words, "Subsections (1) and (2) of Section".
In moving that only Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 22 of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, shall be included, I desire to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health (Scotland) to a grievance under which the local authorities in Scotland are labouring, and have laboured under, for a number of years past. As the Committee are aware, the duties of medical officers and sanitary inspectors have increased very considerably during the period of the War and since. Quite a number of Acts of Parliament have been passed by this House, which have increased the duties of medical officers and sanitary inspectors,
with the result that their salaries have been increased during the past few years. By the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, the grants which are given by the Government were stereotyped, and they stand at the same figure to-day as they did in 1915. That is most unfair, so far as the Scottish local authorities are concerned, and it is time that this particular provision—Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act—should be dropped from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I appeal very strongly to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to have this particular provision struck out, so that the local authorities in Scotland may get the relief to which they are rightly entitled. I do not know whether this provision affects local authorities in England. If it affected England, London and Wales, I think we should have a greater outcry. I have a suspicion that this is a provision that has been reserved particularly for the ratepayers of Scotland.
8.0 P.M.
This is one of the little things that have gone to increase local rates, and from time to time we have heard in this House that the local ratepayers have during, recent years had to shoulder very considerable burdens. This is one of the ways in which local ratepayers have been called upon to pay more than they are entitled to pay. I hope therefore the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health will be able to assure the Committee this evening that he intends to drop this provision, so that the local authorities in Scotland will have the relief they are entitled to have from the central authority. I am not sure what is the percentage, but I think it was about 30 per cent. of the expenditure on medical officers' salaries and sanitary inspectors' salaries and travelling and other expenses that used to be paid by the Central Government. But, since this Act was passed, the grants have been stereotyped, with the result that local authorities are suffering considerably to-day. I might give various illustrations, but I will mention merely one. There is one local authority with which I am very familiar, which used to have an expenditure of between £500 and £600 a year on those services I have mentioned. We at that time got a grant of about £117 from the Secretary for Scotland. We have increased the salary, and the expenditure in connection with these
funds last year was nearly £900, and we are still receiving the same grant that we received in 1915. This is most unfair to the local ratepayers in Scotland, and I hope we are to have an assurance that this provision is to be taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have to thank the Mover for the succinct way in which he brought forward this point, which has raised a certain amount of comment in Scotland. I should like to put one or two points to him, which I think escaped his notice. In the first place, by dropping this provision in the present Bill, as his Amendment would have the effect of doing, we should not thereby increase the sum allocated to Scotland for payment of grant in aid of rates. We should not obtain any larger sum of money. The allocation of the sum we received would be slightly changed, but the sum would not be in any way increased. That brings me to the second point. The hon. Member said we were suffering in Scotland an injustice as against England, but that again is not so. We are in Scotland working on a different allocation of the money we receive as against England, but there is no cut in the grant we are receiving from Imperial funds on account of this different method of allocation. I would point out that this was made clear in an answer I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on the 28th February. I pointed out then that while a larger allocation was made in aid of this branch of local expenditure from the English taxation account, the effect is correspondigly to diminish the balance available for distribution in aid of the cost of other local services. We should not gain more money by this re-allocation, which would simply mean a greater amount allocated to this account, and which would come out of some other portion of the funds available for Scotland. This is one reason why the stereotype is still being continued. To change it from a block grant, as it is now, to an allocated grant would mean a considerable amount of clerical work which would not give any correspondingly greater amount of money. I admit, however, it is an anomaly and an anachronism and that it is a thing which should be done away with.
The last point I would make is, that this question of grants in relief of local rates is at this moment under consideration by Lord Meston's Committee. If this system were swept away and the grants allocated on a percentage basis there would be a great deal of clerical work to be done by the local authorities in making out Estimates and by the central authority in checking them. It is estimated by the Board of Health that it would require the whole-time services of some three clerks for fully four months a year to do the necessary auditing which would be required, and if, as a result of the Committee's report, this basis is again changed, we would have all that work for nothing. Therefore, for this year we desire to continue the basis under which we have worked for the last few years. I will guarantee to the hon. Member that I will give the matter my closest attention, and I have every hope that this is the last year we shall bring forward a provision of this kind. But considering the fact that the Meston Committee is considering it, it would be unwise to change this and have all the calculations to do again. I hope with that explanation the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I would like to put a question or two to the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. I want to know if he will make inquiry as to the method of apportioning this grant in England. I have a strong feeling that this bit of economy is being practised at the expense of the Scottish authorities.

(12)





7 and 8 Geo. V., c. 42
..
The Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917.
The whole Act
…
…
9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 83.

I move this Amendment simply for the purpose of getting a pledge. The Committee is aware that two Workmen's Compensation Bills received a Second Reading in the House at an earlier part of the Session. One was moved by us from these benches and the other was a Govern merit Bill. The Government Bill has been upstairs for some time, and it has been found necessary to have a prolonged discussion on its provisions. That prolonged discussion has had to be undertaken on account of the very complicated provisions that must always be included in a Workmen's Compensation Bill. It has

We have been getting less and less from Imperial sources, and it is being piled on to the local rates. We have been asked to raise this matter, and, knowing the interest the Under-Secretary takes in Scottish affairs, we are depending on his help in this matter. We want even this year to make certain that this is not another matter of economy at the expense of Scotland. We are informed that there is a different method of allocation on this side of the Border than on the other side, and I would like the Under-Secretary to make inquiry into that and let us know.

Captain ELLIOT: Just in a sentence let me say that I will be glad to make the inquiry for which the hon. Member asks, but I am sure that there is not a smaller proportion of money given to Scotland than is given to England. I shall be glad, however, to make inquiry into it.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. WATSON: In view of the reply given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. The Under-Secretary has given us an assurance that this is the last year in which this will be done, and I hope we shall have a better arrangement in future.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move, after paragraph 11, to insert a new paragraph:

been found impossible to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs in time to enable the House to consider the Report stage and the Third Reading before the Recess. But the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, passed in 1917 and continued from year to year, lapses on the 31st December of this year. If no provision be made, and should the Government not determine to get the new Bill through this House in time for it to come into operation on the 1st January, 1924, then there will be a very serious gap in the operation of the workmen's compensation law. I move
this Amendment to get a pledge from the Government that they mean to get this Bill through during the Autumn Session in time for all the Rules and Regulations to be issued, so that there will be no gap in the operation of the law. I have no intention otherwise of pressing this Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to the hon. Gentleman. We are getting on very well in Committee upstairs with the Bill, and in another two sittings we hope to have completed the Committee stage, and the Home Secretary has every intention of passing the Bill into law when we resume after the holidays, so that it will become an Act of Parliament before the War Addition Act lapses.

Mr. MacDONALD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (12).
This Amendment proposes to omit Section 7 of the Juries Act, 1918, as amended by 12 and 13 Geo. 5, c. 2. This Section gives power to coroners to dispense with a jury altogether. The coroner need not summon a jury in the manner required by the Coroners Act, 1887, provided that:

"(a) The foregoing provision shall not apply in any case in which the death has occurred in prison or in such place or under such circumstances as to require an inquest under any Act other than the Coroners Act, 1887; and
(b) If before proceeding to hold an inquest or in the course of holding an inquest without a jury there appears to the Coroner to be any reason for summoning a jury, he may, and if there appears to him to be any reason to suspect that the deceased came by his death by murder or manslaughter, he shall proceed to summon a jury in the manner required by the Coroners Act, 1887."

Hon. Members will observe that it lies with the Coroner to suspect that there has been murder or manslaughter. I suggest that the Coroner may not be seized of all the circumstances. A dead body may be found in mysterious circumstances, and there may not be any means of knowing whether the case is one of murder or not. We have recently had two or three painful cases of bodies having been exhumed and, after careful research, proofs of murder have been discovered which
have led to the execution of criminals. The justification for this Section 7 is no longer operative, and I see no reason why the ordinary juries should not be summoned to sit at inquests in accordance with the Act of 1887. The Act of 1918 was a War-time Measure introduced because there was a shortage of persons eligible to serve on juries, owing to their being engaged in the national service and on war work of one kind or another. There is no valid reason for continuing the provisions of such an Act, and unless the Government make out a very clear case as to why it is still necessary to have power to dispense with these juries, I hope the Committee will support me in my Amendment.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: This is a subject of some importance, and there are many Members who are anxious to see the old jury system as it was before the War put into full operation again. It may be that, so far as inquests are concerned, there is something to be said for dispensing with juries in special cases. There are a good many instances where men are called together to serve on a coroner's jury and where a great deal of time is wasted. I think, at any rate, there is a case for putting the whole matter upon a permanent basis. It is very unsatisfactory that it should be dealt with in this way from year to year, and it had better be settled definitely one way or the other, as to how we are going to deal with the question of coroners' juries and, in fact, with juries generally. A Bill has been introduced which will deal with other matters concerning juries and, possibly, with this one, but I think it is important that there should be some statement from a representative of the Government as regards this as well as other matters in connection with juries. I know of no particular reason which would lead one to believe that the old system was in any way abused or did not work well. I should like to see the old system reverted to and to see juries in full operation in this country, because I think it is one of the best features of English law.

Mr. F. GRAY: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that I have had considerable experience in connection with this subject, having taken down the depositions at more than
600 inquests. Let me point out that under the Coroners Act of 1887 the coroner had considerable power in determining whether there should or should not be an inquest in a particular case. I was always impressed by the fact that a large percentage of the cases in which inquests are held, are cases in respect of poor people and workers. The reason is two-fold—and I am speaking now of the human side of the matter. First, it is only when an inquest was held that the doctor who has been called in is able to get the substantial fee of two guineas for conducting the post-mortem examination, with an additional guinea for attending to give evidence at the inquest. The second reason is that in a large number of cases where a sudden death occurs in the house of a well-to-do person, it is notorious that very considerable pressure is brought to bear upon the coroner to induce him to abstain from having the unpleasant publicity of an inquest. The power conferred by the Act of 1887 in this respect, is probably too wide. When an inquest is held and a jury is called together, if it serves no other purpose, it serves the purpose of bringing publicity to bear upon the matter in hand. I am able to illustrate the danger of dispensing with a jury by a very recent case in respect of which I put a question to the Home Secretary in this House. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right in saying that the case concerned one Tallis. Two months after the death this case was the subject of great publicity in two English newspapers and was given considerable space on the principal pages of those newspapers. The reply I received from the Home Secretary was that he would inquire into the matter. As I did not receive a further reply for some time, I repeated my question, but in the meantime I received a personal letter from the Home Secretary saying that he had inquired into the matter and did not propose to take any steps, whereupon I withdrew my question, because I am perfectly content to rely upon the word, given by letter, of the Home Secretary.
Nevertheless, I would point out that, although I had been satisfied, apart from this opportunity of addressing this House, the public who read the startling statements which were made in those English
newspapers have never had the matter publicly cleared up, and therefore I thought it desirable that I should mention it on this occasion. What were the facts of that case so far as I know them? The Home Secretary did not give me the facts. He expressed himself as satisfied, and I accepted that statement, but the facts, so far as I know them, were these, that a death occurred in a well-to-do family in a house situate in an isolated position. The death was notified to the Coroner, and, acting upon this very Section 7 of the Act of 1918, if I am properly informed, with a little black bag he trots up into this isolated position, sits there, holds some sort of inquiry with himself and those people who happened to be there, and thereupon fills up a death certificate and issues a burial certificate. I have no suggestion whatever to make about that particular case. I have said that I am satisfied, but I use that as an illustration to show the very serious danger which you are running in continuing a provision which enables a coroner in practically all cases—I know there are exceptions, but in these very serious cases where there may have been foul play, where there may have been the element of poison, and so forth—to take upon himself the grave responsibility, not only of dispensing with a jury, but, what to my mind is far more important, of avoiding absolutely and entirely, as was done in the case to which I have referred, anything in the nature of publicity. As a matter of fact, that case came to light only through the energy and enterprise of two particular newspapers.
I say this in conclusion, that I would far rather, particularly when I bear in mind the mysterious cases which have been tried in the last 18 months—I have in mind a particular case of a solicitor, where there was no suspicion of foul play, even when there was publicity, and when there was the presence of a jury—but I would far rather that you dispensed with a jury and made it illegal to have a jury in every civil case, and even deprived criminals of the opportunity of trial by jury at Assizes, because at least then you would get publicity, and if you fail to have the advantage and security of a jury, at least you get the advantage and security which public view and public expression give.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the Home Secretary will consider the possibility of accepting this Amendment. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray) has alluded to the enormous importance of publicity in discovering crime. I would draw attention also to the enormous importance of publicity both in preventing further fatal accidents and also in allaying suspicion. Complaints about the abolition of the coroner's jury come very largely from mines and industrial areas. In cases of fatal accidents, whether in a factory or in a mine, it is vitally important that there should be a jury and all available publicity. The accidents very often warrant inquiry, and that inquiry may be entirely burked by the absence of a jury. Not only that but, although there may be nobody to blame in connection with an accident, it is eminently desirable that everybody should realise that, and that there should not be endless stories going about as to how the accident was caused and whose fault it was. Nor is that all. I think the publicity which is obtainable when there is a jury summoned very often shows something in the management, either of the factory or the mine, which could be amended, and thus prevent further accidents. It also shows some carelessness on the part of the workmen, which may also be avoided in the future.
Of this I am certain, that there could be no more popular step, so far as accidents are concerned, than reverting to the old system of having a jury in any case of fatal accident. I have had representations from the miners in my area, and over and over again I have had individual representations made, not so much as to the evils that result from the abolition of coroners' inquests as from the doubts that have arisen owing to the absence of those inquests, doubts which are often as serious as anything can be in connection with those accidents, particularly when people are naturally suspicious of the way in which an accident was caused. I am not arguing it from the point of view of murder or manslaughter, but solely from the point of view of the prevention of accidents in mines and factories, the desirability of clearing up any suspicion as to how those accidents may have been brought about, and the possibility of remedying the conditions under which they may have become possible. For
all these reasons, I ask the Under-Secretary to give the most careful consideration to this Amendment, and to see whether he cannot revert to the ante-1918 practice of insisting on a jury in the case of every coroner's inquest.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that this is a very important question, and I have given it very careful consideration. In regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray), I have that case in my mind, because I read all the documents about it, and, as a matter of fact, the Home Office are watching that case. If any new facts come to light, an application to the High Court could quite easily be made for a second inquest, and if new facts come to light which justify such an application, that application will be made.

Mr. F. GRAY: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I think I am right in saying that his Department only heard of that case through me, two months after the event?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that is accurate.

Mr. GRAY: That was the answer of the Home Secretary.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact, I do not think that any new facts have come to light—and we are watching it very carefully—which would really justify us in interfering at all. According to the evidence given in that case, it was pretty clear, I think, so far as the present facts that have come to light are concerned, that it was an accident. The Mover of the Amendment is aware that this Section 7 was put down originally as a War measure in order to avoid having to summon more people than was necessary, and it has been found very useful, has saved a good deal of expense, has worked perfectly smoothly, and has given general satisfaction to the public. I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who moved the Amendment, that the coroner has not power to dispense with a jury unless the circumstances of the case justify it. Section 7 of the Act provides that the coroner, if he is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the
case, it is proper to do so, he may, in lieu of summoning a jury in the manner required by the Coroners Act of 1887, hold an inquest on the dead body without a jury. But it is provided that

"(a) The foregoing provision shall not apply in any case in which the death has occurred in prison …. and
(b) If before proceeding to hold an inquest or in the course of holding an inquest without a jury there appears to be any reason for summoning a jury, he may, and if there appears to him to be any reason to suspect that the deceased came by his death by murder or manslaughter, he shall proceed to summon a jury in the manner required by the Coroners Act, 1887."

I think that is really sufficient safeguard so far as this temporary measure is concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) considered that this was a serious question, and said he hoped that legislation would very shortly be introduced dealing with the whole subject. I believe that a promise has already been made that legislation is going to be introduced to consolidate and amend the law relating to coroners, and when the time comes, an amendment of this particular Section 7 of the Act of 1918 will be very carefully considered.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There has been a marked change in some of the verdicts returned since it became the practice to sit without a jury. Of recent years, as everyone knows, there has been a great deal of depression due to unemployment and privation, and there have been verdicts recorded which, I believe, would not have been so recorded had 12 men or women sat upon the jury, for it would have been shown clearly that death was due to causes following the aftermath of the War. We are not making any charge against those in power, but this is a matter of immense importance, and certainly one of considerable importance to the workers of the country, particularly when we are told, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us, that there was no real distress arising out of unemployment. We ought to be able to remove that suspicion which arises in the minds of those concerning the death which might follow on distress after long want, and so on. If the real cause of death is suppressed, because those concerned are deprived of the right of inquiry by a
jury, it is not well. For trial by jury has been an Englishman's privilege for centuries; the trial of a person by 12 of his fellow men.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: After what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) respecting accidents in our mines and factories, I will not take up more time than necessary. I want to call particular attention to mining accidents about which I know more than any other accidents. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that this Act was passed during the War time. That is so. We do not complain so much about that. It was either a question of saving expense to some extent, but which was more importance perhaps, of saving time, or not putting upon the inhabitants generally any more work than could be avoided during that precarious time. But I want to appeal to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office that that time has long gone by. The expense that is saved is so infinitesimal that it scarcely counts. The 12 men on a jury are only paid a shilling each, and there are men in the mining districts of England and Wales who are available even at this very small remuneration, and who are prepared to give time and trouble, and what knowledge they have to what is an important issue to us. These men have knowledge of the customs and work of mining, and for that reason this matter should not have been left entirely in the hands of a coroner. A coroner's jury can always elicit information. They cannot do very much for the man who is dead, it is true, but very often they find out things which may prevent other accidents, and also they are afforded scope for information with regard to the framing of legislation when it becomes necessary and when it is opportune for it to be brought about. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that if a man dies in prison, or if the coroner has any suspicion that he has died from murder or poison, then he empanels a jury; he is bound to do so under Section 7.
I say it is far more important—for accidents are more numerous in mines and factories—that we should take a steady view of this matter in respect to legislation. Why is it treated as more
important to look after those who die in prison or who are murdered or poisoned, than it is to know exactly what happens to the very large number of people who meet with fatal accidents in mines? The hon. Gentleman promised that Section 7 shall be amended. What we are afraid of is this, if it is in its present form allowed to continue in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, then another 12 months may go by and we may have no redress at all. Nothing definite has been said. If a jury is empaneled it is not then left entirely to the coroner. If there is no solicitor there, you have at least eight, and perhaps ten, out of the 12 men in mining districts who have had experience and practical knowledge, and who are able to give assistance to the coroner himself in order to find out really and truly the cause of the fatal accident.

Mr. MARCH: I represent a very large section of important workers in an industry which is becoming more and more congested, I mean the vehicle workers of London. When accidents arise through collisions or on account of the traffic it is important in the interests of those men that there should be a jury to hear the whole case. At these inquiries arguments and statements as to the speed at which the men are driving, the character of the driving, and other things, must be thoroughly investigated, and we want to see that justice is done, not only to the relatives of the person who happens to be killed, but we also want to see justice done to those who are left afterwards to earn their living in the same business. Frequently after such investigations a slur is left on people, and many of them in the case of drivers have great difficulty in getting other employment. There ought to be the right to have a jury called together in the case of every accident. This is important with regard to accidents in mines, on ships, and on the wharves, but it is equally important that we should have the fullest inquiry in regard to accidents which occur in the streets. It would give the public more confidence if they knew that these cases were fully investigated, and the driver found guilty or exonerated after a full inquiry into the circumstances. If the drivers are exonerated then it gives relief to the mind of the employers and those associated with them.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I want to join with those who have been urging the representative of the Home Office to agree to the Amendment now before the Committee. I think from the arguments that have been used in this Debate the representative of the Home Office will observe that there is a considerable amount of feeling regarding Section 7 of the Juries Act. I do not wonder at that. We only need to remember the conditions under which this Amendment of the law was secured. It formed part of a big consolidating Measure that was brought in and discussed at one o'clock in the morning, when there were very few hon. Members present, and when those who were present were very exhausted. Although we were told at the time that it was a big Amending Bill, there were very few important matters dealt with. We were also assured by the Member of the Government in charge of the Measure, that the Bill did not contain any very serious changes in the law, and in consequence of that it was allowed to pass. It was only after that Measure was placed upon the Statute Book that is was discovered that it had taken away the right to a trial by jury in England under certain conditions.
We have been told again and again that many of the changes that were made were war measures, but I do not believe this change was a war measure. There are a considerable number of judges, both in England and Scotland, who have been very anxious to secure this change, and it was asked for again and again during the War in Scotland, but we resolutely set our faces against the change being made, and it will be observed that it does not apply to Scotland or Ireland. As has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan), the change is a very important one, particularly in relation to accidents. It is probably more important to the mining industry than it is to any other part of British industries, because in mining we have a very large accident roll, and consequently a Measure of this kind becomes of first-rate importance to the mining industry. The fact is that this law, while it applies to England, does not apply to Scotland at all because there we have our right to a jury in the case of a fatal accident inquiry. This is a position which cannot continue, and I take this
opportunity of urging upon the Government to agree to this Amendment otherwise we shall be bound to bring in an Amending Bill at the first opportunity to restore the law to the original position in which it stood before the consolidating Measure was brought in. This change is one that the Labour party considers to be of vital importance, and unless the Under-Secretary is prepared to agree to the Amendment the onus will rest upon the Labour party to bring in an Amending Bill to remedy the grievance complained of with regard to the operation of Section 7 of the Juries Act. For these reasons I hope the representative of the Home Office will accept this Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have listened carefully to everything the right hon. Gentleman has said, and also to the other speeches which have been delivered on the same subject. I think hon. Gentlemen have made out a very strong case for inquiry and possibly for change, but I would like to point out that we have already put in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill an Act to which no Amendment was put down, namely, the Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Mr. GRAY: I had an Amendment and I expressly asked for a ruling on it. It was ruled out of order.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have already put into this Bill an Act which deals with the question now before the Committee, and having done that, although I agree an inquiry is necessary, I suggest that the Committee might allow this purely temporary provision, which also deals with coroners, to go in the present Bill. I have been very much impressed by the speeches made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does intend to bring in a Bill altering the law relating to coroners. That Bill will be brought in very soon, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of stating their views upon it and of raising the point to which they have been drawing special attention. I suggest, having already put into the Bill an Act dealing with coroners, hon. Members might allow this temporary provision to go through as well.

Mr. PRINGLE: I have been very much interested in the defence put up by the hon. Gentleman. It was my intention to have moved an Amendment in regard to
the earlier Measure, but as it was ruled from the Chair that any Amendment not on the Paper must be rejected, it was obviously impossible for us to deal with that earlier Measure. That earlier Measure provides for a reduction in the number of coroners' jurors. Surely if you have a provision which enables the coroner to reduce the numbers of the jury that is not such a strong reason for insisting that there should be a jury. If the jury had been on the old scale then the hon. Gentleman might have taken a different attitude. In the course of the Debate cases have been brought forward in which it was in the public interest that juries should not be extinguished. But that is no particular reason why, during the period through which this Bill will run, this alleged temporary provision should continue. I hope the hon. Member will divide the Committee on this proposal, and induce it to say that the provision is contrary to the public interest.

9.0 P.M.

Sir STANLEY JOHNSON: The feeling on this matter is not confined to one side of the Committee. Some change is felt to be necessary in the direction of taking away from the present authority the power of deciding whether or not a jury shall be empanelled. It would not be difficult to find quite a body of evidence in favour of a change taking place, as the present system does not satisfy the public and has, in fact, given rise to a considerable amount of discontent. The change of law to which we are objecting took away a right which had for centuries satisfied the public, and many people were very sorry to see that done. Still more the public are dissatisfied that it should rest with a particular individual to decide whether or not he shall have the assistance of a jury and then, having decided that point on perhaps quite insufficient facts, he should proceed to deal with the case himself, although the public would have liked to have seen a jury acting. I think the Minister in charge of the Bill should give some more satisfactory assurance than he has done.

Mr. T. SMITH: Those of us who have had some experience of coroners and juries hope sincerely that the Government will bring in a Bill to alter the law as it stands at present. We do not think it should be in the power of the coroner to decide whether or not there should be
a jury. My experience is this: if you have a jury and that jury is composed of men with some knowledge of the particular trade they are better able to ascertain whether or not there has been carelessness which has resulted in the accident. We would far rather have an inquiry conducted by a coroner with the assistance of a jury than by the coroner himself. I admit I have, personally, no complaint to make with regard to coroners whom I have known and who have to my knowledge always attempted to carry out the inquiry impartially and correctly. Still, we hope the Government will bring in a Bill amending the law as soon as possible.

Mr. BONWICK: The Under-Secretary for the Home Office has admitted the reasonableness of this Amendment, but has stated that he cannot accept it because the Home Secretary intends to introduce at a later stage some consolidation measure. I venture to suggest that that does not satisfy us, and I hope my hon. Friends the Members for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and Oxford City (Mr. F. Gray) will press this Amendment to a division, because there is a good deal of uneasiness amongst workers in the country on this matter owing to the fact that when an accident has occurred the coroner may please himself whether or not he empanels a jury. May I give one illustration which came to my notice only a few months ago? An accident had occurred in one of my own factories, and it made me realise how strong was the feeling of the workers in their desire to have a coroner's jury empanelled. We were employing some people to carry out some alterations under a sub-contract. We informed them that under no circumstances were they to use our lift unless our own liftman was in charge of the lift, and we also put a notice to that effect on the lift doors. Unfortunately, however, our notice was ignored, with the result that one man who used the lift left it on the second floor, and another man opened the door on the first floor, fell down the lift well, and was instantly killed. The Coroner decided that he would not have a jury in dealing with that case, and a great deal of resentment was felt by the unfortunate man's fellow-workmen. If the workers of this country could vote on this subject, I think they would be unanimous in demanding that in case of an accident, whether in a factory, in a mine, or in
the street, there should be a coroner's jury, and I hope that even at this late hour the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think anyone would deny that in practice a large number of cases occur in which a coroner can properly dispense with a jury.

Mr. W. WATSON: Some coroners make it a practice never to have a jury.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They cannot dispense with a jury in a case where death has occurred in prison, or where there is any reason to suspect that the death was due to manslaughter or murder.

Mr. WATSON: Perhaps I ought to qualify what I have said by adding, in cases of fatal accidents at collieries. I know that there are such cases.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I agree, but I do not think anyone would contest the statement that there are cases in which the summoning of a jury by a coroner is quite useless, and leads to expense and gives a great deal of trouble to those who summoned. I agree, also, that there may be cases in which coroners do not now summon juries which, perhaps, ought to be reconsidered, and, as has already been mentioned, it is intended to bring in a Bill next Session. Therefore, I hope the Committee will allow this Section to be carried on in the expiring laws, if an assurance is given, as I am prepared to do, that a Bill will be introduced next Session, and that we will carefully consider further limitations upon the powers of coroners to dispense with a jury, amongst the other matters which we shall have to consider in drafting that Bill. I cannot go further than that now, but I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Our greatest difficulty—and the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with this point—is that there are cases in which, once a coroner has the right to dispense with the assistance of a jury, he will not depart from that practice, in spite of representations made by the people affected, employers and employés alike. As has already been said, that causes great resentment, because, when people die in prison, when people have been murdered, or when there is a suspicion that they have been poisoned, juries are
summoned, but in the long roll of fatal accidents—1,100 or 1,200 in some years, and over 1,000 every year—in several districts in South Wales the coroner has the right, and has exercised it, of not empanelling a jury to assist him in inquiring into those accidents. The request that this Section shall be deleted, and that it shall be made obligatory upon the coroner in all cases of fatal accidents to empanel a jury for the purpose of the inquiry, is a very moderate one.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one particular phase of this Bill. Where a coroner determines that no jury shall be empanelled, in cases of fatal accidents in mines or elsewhere, he himself accepts full responsibility, in many cases, for determining whether compensation shall be paid to the widow and children or not. That, I think, is a power that ought not to rest in the hands of one individual, for, once the verdict of the coroner is given, it is calculated to bias the mind of any County Court judge. If only from that point of view, it ought to be made obligatory upon the coroner in such cases to empanel a jury, so that the whole case can be gone into. The right hon. Gentleman said that this matter was going to be inquired into, but it seems to me that there is no need for inquiry at all. Where fatal accidents have occurred—and we know that they are, sadly, too numerous sometimes—it has been found that suggestions have been made by members of the jury who have hitherto worked in the particular industry in which the accident has occurred. They would never have dared to make such suggestions while they were working in the industry, but, as members of the jury, having left that particular employment, they were able to make during the hearing suggestions which, otherwise, would never have been made. As a result of such suggestions, improvements are made and preventive measures are taken that would not be taken if only the coroner held the inquiry. Moreover, the coroner may have little or no knowledge of, say, mining operations, and when witnesses talk about cross-gates, jennies, main levels, and other kind of levels, and use other technical mining phrases, it is totally impossible for the coroner, without
having been down the mine and studied these matters, to understand more than a very small part of the evidence given. Therefore, I suggest that if, even at this late hour, it is possible for the Home Secretary to change his mind, he should do so, so that in all cases, particularly of fatal accidents in the mining industry and similar industries, it shall be obligatory for juries to be empanelled, firstly, in order that the inquiry may be a real one, and, secondly, to transfer the responsibility from the shoulders of an individual coroner to those of a full jury when dealing with the question as it affects compensation in any particular case.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If I were to do what has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) and by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), it would require an Amendment. They ask that in fatal accidents it should be necessary for the coroner to have a jury. I have a great deal of sympathy with that suggestion, and am quite prepared to consider it when the forthcoming Bill is being drafted; but, if I accepted the Amendment on the Paper, I should have to prevent coroners from ever hearing cases without a jury, and I am not prepared at this moment to admit that there are not a great number of cases in which a jury can very well be dispensed with, to the advantage of all parties. Apart from the question of death in prison or suspicion of murder or manslaughter, I should also point out that the coroner is bound as it is to be satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is proper to dispense with a jury. If I say, as I do, that I will fully consider the possibility of limiting the power of the coroner to dispense with a jury to the extent hon. Members opposite have asked me I hope they will not press the Amendment.

Mr. F. GRAY: Is it not a fact that the coroner alone decides whether it is a case of suspicion of murder?

Mr. ADAMSON: We must divide the House because the Home Secretary has shown by his latest remarks that there is a wide gap between him and us. In his first remarks I thought he was suggesting that this should rather continue for a
short time until he could bring in an amending Bill.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: So I was.

Mr. ADAMSON: But the right hon. Gentleman has gone much further the last time he spoke and has shown that there is a wide divergence of opinion between us. If he would accept the Amendment it would not leave him without machinery between now and the time he may wish to reconsider the matter. To accept the present Amendment would simply mean that the change that was made in the law under the circumstances I have described in the early hours of the morning in 1918 would be departed from and he would be back on the 1887 Act, and that is exactly what the workers employed in the dangerous industries want. They want the machinery of 1887 restored, and the right hon. Gentleman may take it that they will not be satisfied until they get it restored. They believe that wherever there are fatal accidents it is necessary to inquire into them, not only with a view to finding out exactly the circumstances under which the man died but with a view to the jury making suggestions as to preventive measures

which might be taken. If the Home Secretary still refuses to accept the Amendment we shall have no alternative but to divide the Committee.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for England or for Scotland.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already stated that this does not apply to Scotland, and that in fatal accidents we have our juries. The same thing was tried with Scotland, but we refused to accept it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My impression is that in Scotland if the Procurator Fiscal thinks an inquiry ought to be held, he has a jury, and the right hon. Gentleman is arguing about a thing which does not affect the country he represents. I cannot go further than I have. I have promised to consider the Amendment before the Bill is introduced. I cannot accept it now, because that would prevent any coroner dispensing with a jury in a case where it was totally unnecessary.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 157.

Division No. 293.]
AYES.
[9.22 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Apsley, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Greaves-Lord, Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Livip'l, W. D'by)


Banks, Mitchell
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Halstead, Major D.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cope, Major William
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Becker, Harry
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Harrison, F. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hawke, John Anthony


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Berry, Sir George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Blundell, F. N.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hood, Sir Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hopkins, John W. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Houfton, John Plowright


Briggs, Harold
Ellis, R. G.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, Capt. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hume G. H.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bruford, R.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hurd, Percy A.


Bruton, Sir James
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hurst, Gerald B.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Flanagan, W. H.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Forestier-Walker, L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cassels, J. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Furness, G. J.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Skelton, A. N.


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pease, William Edwin
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Lamb, J. Q.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, William George
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Peto, Basil E.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lorden, John William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lorimer, H. D.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Lort-Williams, J.
Privett, F. J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lougher, L.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lumley, L. R.
Raine, W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain E.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rentoul, G. S.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Manville, Edward
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Wells, S. R.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Mercer, Colonel H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wise, Frederick


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wolmer, Viscount


Murchison, C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Nall, Major Joseph
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney



Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shepperson, E. W.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morel, E. D.


Adams, D.
Hancock, John George
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harbord, Arthur
Mosley, Oswald


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Muir, John W.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, H.


Attlee, C. R.
Hastings, Patrick
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Newbold, J. T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
O'Grady, Captain James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Oliver, George Harold


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Paling, W.


Bowdler, W. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Briant, Frank
Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Broad, F. A.
Hill, A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bromfield, William
Hinds, John
Potts, John S.


Brotherton, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burgess, S.
Irving, Dan
Richards, R.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Riley, Ben


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Ritson, J.


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Collison, Levi
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, S.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Duffy, T. Gavan
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Sir A.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawson, John James
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Leach, W.
Snell, Harry


Edmonds, G.
Lee, F.
Snowden, Philip


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Linfield, F. C.
Spoor, B. G.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gosling, Harry
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
M'Entee, V. L.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Greenall, T.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Groves, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Thornton, M.


Grundy, T. W.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Tillett, Benjamin


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Middleton, G.
Tout, W. J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Millar, J. D.
Trevelyan, C. P.




Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Warne, G. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Frank Gray and Mr. A. V.


Westwood, J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Alexander.


Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (15).
I am always reluctant to address the House more than once in the same week, but the importance of the occasion, I am afraid, compels me to make a short statement of my reasons for this Amendment. This is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, Section 1. This does not deal with aliens in merchant vessels, fishing vessels, alien pilots, or anything of that sort. All that is permanent legislation, and is not in question. This deals with the restrictions on former enemy aliens entering the United Kingdom, and on aliens generally. This is the first time that this Government has had an opportunity, I believe, to disclose their policy on this very important question. I may say at once that I am strongly opposed to the policy of the late Coalition Government in 1919 when, under the pressure of Mr. Bottomley, of Sir Edward Carson—now Lord Carson—of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), and one or two of their followers, they continued the war-time legislation indefinitely against aliens. They deliberately carried on in a time of peace after the ending of the War the same legislation, the same restrictions, against foreigners that they were only able to pass through this House of Commons under the emotions, the sentiments, the fears, and the general atmosphere of 1914 after War had been declared. At that time it was decided, when the whole country, I am afraid, or a very large portion of it, was suffering from acute attacks of spionitis, to bring in this very ridiculous enactment, and then, in 1919, when we were still suffering from shell-shock, the gentlemen I have mentioned, headed by Mr. Bottomley—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—yes, he was the leader of the whole agitation-and with the general excitment and xenophobia that always exists after a great war, and did especially after the last one, they were able to compel this Chamber to depart from the whole principle of British practice with regard to foreigners. I propose, therefore, to leave out these words which will not continue this iniquitous Section 1 of this Act. Parts of the Measure are good, I
freely admit, and parts are just, but this particular Section is purely a war relic. We have been for some generations looked upon as a country that opened its gates wide to the oppressed and persecuted from all countries. An hon. Member says it is time to stop, but there are some hon. Members who would like to throw away the most treasured possession of the English race, our reputation for fair dealing, for hospitality, courtesy, and decent treatment of the oppressed, persecuted, the weak, and the humble. They would throw away that heritage. I hope there are sufficient hon. Members, at any rate, to show that we are not all suffering from this disease, because it is a disease. Xenophobia—hatred of foreigners—is a disease, and the sooner it is eradicated from this Chamber the better. Leave it to your Klu Klux Klan and your Fascisti, and the remainder of them.
There is a very practical side to this question. We are a great commercial and trading people. We are more hard put to it than ever to find markets, and it is not a good thing to make it difficult for foreign business men to come to this country for trading. It means a loss of business and a consequent loss of employment in this country. I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are not in their places.
In my experience, those two Departments, when they are appealed to—I have had many appeals made to them on behalf of business men and others in my constituency—have been very good in giving facilities to visitors to come here, but the fact that it has been necessary to make these special applications shows that there is a hampering of commercial intercourse between ourselves and other nations that is bound to react adversely on our commerce. The very fact that it takes some time before visas can be granted to foreign merchants to come here, simply because they happen to be in former enemy countries, naturally puts a check on British commerce. They do not come for pleasure or amusement to a country with a high exchange, where
living for them is very expensive. They come here to do business. We should open the gates wide to people who come here either to buy or sell goods, and thus give employment to our people. That is the practical side of the question.
Another important side is the political side. There are no people more widely scattered over the globe than the descendants of the inhabitants of those islands. Our people are the most travelled people in the world. We have founded great colonies of English in South America, Central America, Asia, Africa and other parts of the globe. We are a seafaring, adventuring, exploring, pioneering people. We may make it a matter of considerable difficulty for a few Americans, Austrians or Danes to come to this country, but there is always the danger of reprisals being exercised on the far greater number of British people who are pursuing their lawful avocations in foreign parts. Furthermore, we, as a great buying and selling nation, dependent on foreign trade for our very existence, ought to want to have good relations with all peoples. The persons who come to this country are the missionaries of their countrymen at home. Their friends and relations in their own country will take their opinion of these islands and their inhabitants from the reports carried back by the travellers who come here. Under this Act we are putting all sorts of restrictions in the way of these law abiding, peaceful persons who wish to come here.
Then we object in many cases to people whom we are pleased to label as political agitators. They belong to Socialist or other parties on the left in these countries, who are forced to fly from countries like Bavaria, Turkey, Hungary and so forth, because of their opposition to the powers that be. In the past we always had a welcome for people of that sort, for the Garibaldis, the Liberators, the carriers of the standard of liberty. We were glad to allow them to come here and we had a reputation in all parts of the world because of the liberality and hospitality that were shown to these men. We have a reputation as a freedom loving people and as a free country. In too many cases I am sorry to say that Government Departments have made difficulties in admitting these people. I will repeat that, in the case of the Home Secretary,
where established firms put forward a claim for business men, after the necessary delay, these people are admitted. The Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Board of Trade have been helpful in that respect, but all this means delay and obstacles. Many firms do not know that they can get these concessions for people who are coming as customers. Therefore possible customers are kept out.
I will give an actual case which occurred recently which shows how ridiculous this Act has been in its operation. There is to be held in Edinburgh an International Congress on physiology. A very well-known Russian professor of physiology, Professor Pabloff, applied in New York for a French visa and a British visa. This gentleman wished for a British visa to attend the International Congress of physiologists, on the invitation of the learned society of Edinburgh which is holding this conference. The British Consul in New York refused the British visa to this scientist. The French Consul granted him a visa to go to Paris to visit his fellow scientists there. The apparent reason given was that this gentleman, though opposed, I understand, politically to the present Government in Russia, was travelling with a Soviet passport.
For the information of the Home Secretary, or any other hon. Member who may not be seized of all the facts, I should say that the Russian Government issued a decree 12 months ago ordering their nationals to take out Soviet passports in exchange for old Tsarist passports or to lose their nationality. Therefore, these people are placed in the awkward position that if they do not take out Soviet passports they cannot go back to Russia, or can only go with great difficulty, but if they do, the Foreign Office or the Home Secretary's Department will prevent these people getting visas to come here, as they did in the case of Professor Pabloff, who is a very well-known scientist. It is making this country ridiculous to refuse a person like that a visa under this ridiculous Act which we are now asked to extend another 12 months.
I gave some instances the other night of young children who were left orphans in Poland or Russia, and who have got in England relatives who wish to bring them to this country, and the right hon. Gentleman hardens his heart and says:
"Under this Act I am not allowed to admit these poor aliens. They are not to come." He dries up the founts of charity and human feeling and love in this matter. I see on the Front bench the Lord Privy Seal (Lord R. Cecil), who is playing his usual distinguished part in the League of Nations, the new ideal of internationalism and human brotherhood. What does he say to these artificial restrictions, to this attempt to partition off the human race into different sections of sheep and goats, to these restrictions on students and scientists coming here to study, and on business men? I do not see present any hon. Member who attended the great International Congress at Genoa, but I do remember some of the resolutions which were passed there, not by representatives of this Government alone, but by representatives of some 23 nations, demanding that these artificial restrictions and barriers between peoples should be broken down.
Lastly, I make this appeal to the Government. The other day we had a very momentous statement by the Prime Minister on the European situation. I wish to draw attention to the very laudable sentiments expressed in that statement, for the desire to restore a normal atmosphere in Europe, an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation, instead of an atmosphere—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member is not in order in repeating those sentiments here.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not attempt to repeat the lofty views of the right hon. Gentleman. In the pre-War conditions an honest law-abiding person could travel from end to end of Europe without trouble until he came, perhaps, to the confines of Tsarist Russia. Now we find all the trouble about visas and passports, and the preventing of the exchange of ideas and understanding, which alone can restore the old atmosphere, an atmosphere under which our manufacturers could look to assured markets for their trade. We must get back to those days, and Section 1 of this Aliens Act prevents the return. It keeps up the artificial hatreds between peoples engendered by the War. As long as I am in the House, whatever Government is in power, whatever its political colour or complexion, if it attempts to carry on
these artificial war restrictions and hindrances to the community of mankind, I shall resist them, even if I do it alone.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I have listened with great interest to the hon. and gallant Member and the arguments he put forward on behalf of the oppressed—I think it was of Russia. The hon. and gallant Gentleman represents a great industrial constituency. One of the burning questions in that constituency has been the question of the action of the Russian Government in respect of the Hull trawlers, and I do not think, somehow, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's championship of the poor, oppressed Russian will appeal very much to his constituents. After all, what is the attitude of the Russian Government towards this question? Do they welcome all corners to Russia? I think it is difficult to get a Russian passport. I have not tried myself, but I am not sure whether, if I succeeded in getting one, I should be admitted to Russia. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has pointed out the danger of reprisals in this matter. Recently we had an extraordinary business going on in America—the action of the American Government towards British emigrants. I raised the question at the time, and I should have expected the hon. and gallant Gentleman, holding the views he has expressed to-night, to have been seconding my efforts to obtain the admission of these poor, downtrodden Englishwomen into America. I merely try to point out the question as to whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is consistent in his views. I would like to put to him another question. He has been a distinguished officer in the Navy. He was the captain of a ship. Would he allow anyone to come over the side of that ship if he did not approve of that person? If he were in the harbour at Malta, and a Maltese he did not like wanted to come on board, would he allow him on? But this is a serious question. It is about the only safeguard that this country has against being flooded with a lot of possibly very undesirable aliens. If the right hon. Gentleman had not these powers—if he does not have this Act passed, what powers has he to prevent the ingress of very undesirable people? Would the hon. and gallant Member like to have a flood of White Guards and Fascisti coming into the country? He is
hardly consistent. We must have some restriction against admittance to this country. He admits that he has little to complain of, because when he has made representation about people for whom he can vouch, they were admitted to this country. You can get into this country easily enough if you have someone to vouch for you. I hope that the Committee will support the Government in this Measure, and will continue to exclude the political missionaries to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope the Committee will do exactly the contrary to what the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) wants. There is scarcely a noble family in this country which has not mixed blood, which came to them from people overseas. I do not understand the hilarity of the right hon. Gentleman opposite whenever a foreigner is mentioned. It seems to me we have gone back very many centuries when the House of Commons talks of foreigners in the atmosphere in which we are talking of them to-night. They are human beings like all of us, and this country owes a great deal to the foreigners who brought industries here years ago. The charge against the alien is that he produces a lot on low wages, but a man who does that, who produces more than he consumes, ought to be of great service to this country. You are telling us to cheapen production, and he does that. Who get the benefit of it? The English employers of these men. I have lived among these people—

The CHAIRMAN: The question is not the aliens' policy, but whether the Home Secretary should have certain powers under the Act.

Mr. LANSBURY: I know of my own knowledge that the people who make the money out of these men are unscrupulous gentiles, who employ them at low wages. The reason I am opposing this is because the Act is used for political purposes. The Home Secretary has power to have a man arrested on board a ship, put into Brixton Prison, and kept there for months on end. It was all very well for the noble Lord to laugh, but the Home Secretary knows I am speaking the truth. He can have a man—and he has had not one man but many men—taken
from off a ship, and landed in Brixton Prison, with no charge made against him; kept there for months, and then shipped away where the Home Secretary likes to order him to go. I say that no one man in any country ought to have that power. The right hon. Gentleman must not shake his head, because he knows perfectly well that he and I have had correspondence on this subject, and he knows that he has kept men in prison in this way and then sent them abroad. What has been the charge against them? They are his political opponents; they happen to hold Communist views, and because they are Communists they are treated in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Oh, what nonsense! What nonsense! The British Empire is afraid of allowing a Communist to land on its shores!
Hon. Members think they will keep back the tide of Communism by this sort of tomfoolery. It is persecution of the worst description, and is certainly the sort of treatment of people which is a disgrace to this country at the moment, and a disgrace to all the traditions of this country. Had the Home Secretary had this power in the days of Kropokin, Kossuth, and Mazzini those men would have been kept out in their day. They were looked upon by the autocracies of Europe as as great a danger to the community as the Communists are to-day They were driven out of their own country and allowed to come here, and this House supported the Ministers in allowing them to come here. In dealing with aliens, the Home Secretary discriminates, and keeps out the Communists. I want to know why he does not keep out the White Russians; why they should be allowed to come here and still occupy their Embassy in London; and why they should be feted, and made a great fuss of? It only shows that you have your law to enable them to come here, but not to allow your political opponents to come here. I do not think we ought to have a law of that sort on the Statute Book at all, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.
I think I have said in this House before that you cannot have a war without having repressive legislation, and without doing things that in peace time are unnecessary. Here we are, years after the peace, and it is time this sort of war emergency legislation was wiped off the Statute Book. We ought not to go
on, year after year, re-establishing the disbodied power of the Home Secretary, to allow in one sort of alien and to keep out another. If we are going to keep out aliens, then let us keep them all out. The Government does not do that; the Whites and the Fascisti are allowed in. You say you keep the Communists out because they are not democrats, and because they want to overturn in a violent way order over here. Yet you welcome Mussolini here, and people like him, who have done far worse than ever the Bolshevists did in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, far worse. Everybody who knows what has happened in Italy—

Mr. BLUNDELL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) does not give way, the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) cannot speak.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. LANSBURY: I repeat that the Italian Fascisti movement has been guilty of more outrages against individual liberty than have ever taken place in Bolshevist Russia, and yet those people are welcomed and fêted and honoured here. That, again, shows how the Home Secretary wilfully administers this Act in a political sense. Although I am not a member of the Communist party, I want to say that you have no right, even although you disagree with them, to keep them out merely because they are Communists. It is not a question of their coming here to take the bread out of people's mouths. The right hon. Gentle-knows that the people about whom I have written to him simply came here in the course of going to Moscow, and that they were not allowed to travel through this country from port to port. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is a pretty nice thing! You are the people who go through the country telling the electorate what tyrants we shall be to you when we get into power, and that shows what humbug it is when you talk in that way. It shows, also, that you do not care a scrap for liberty, in the broad sense. The liberty and freedom in which you believe is only the freedom to think as you want people to think. I, personally, believe in freedom for every man and woman to
think and say whatever they think fit. That is all I am asking for, for Communists, or anybody else.
I want to say this, further, with regard to aliens. This House, and the British nation, as a nation, has no right at any time to talk about being pure-blooded, and keeping the nation pure. We are the most mixed race in the world. From the Royal Family right down we are a mixed race. At the bidding of Mr. Bottomley you passed these laws. At the bidding of Mr. Bottomley you changed the name of the Royal House from Guelph to Windsor. At the bidding of Mr. Bottomley you tore the Knights' Garters and Banners down from the Chapel at Windsor—

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. What has this to do with—[Interruption.]

Mr. LANSBURY: At the bidding of Mr. Bottomley, you passed this law—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): I do not think we need refer to Mr. Bottomley in discussing this Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), in relation to this Act which is being continued, not entitled to refer to the part which Mr. Bottomley took in passing it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may refer to the part Mr. Bottomley took when it is relevant to discussion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Refer to it whether you are right or not.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to drag Mr. Bottomley into this, because, after all, it shows what a weak-minded set you were to allow one man to lead you astray. The whole of this anti-alien humbug has gone on. The whole of this sort of hatred of the alien and the foreigner has sprung from the kind of agitation which went on during the War. From the Royal Family downwards, there is no one in this country who has any right to pour scorn and contempt on the foreigner. The foreigner is as good as anyone of us here, and he has as much right to land in this country as we have to land in his country. We claim the right to go throughout the length and breadth of the world when we
will, and other people ought to have the right to come here. I am mainly against this proposal to continue to give the Home Secretary these powers because he uses them in a political sense; because he takes poor men off ships, and arrests poor men in the streets, merely because they are Communists. I have already given the Committee a case where no evidence was given against two men, and where one of the magistrates lectured them on no evidence whatever, and where you landed them in—

Lord APSLEY: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in referring to the Home Secretary in a personal manner?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the question which is before the Committee and to address the Chair.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to say that I would not hurt the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for anything. I have a great respect for him, but I hate his politics and I hate the manner in which he administers the Home Office in this connection. The Home Secretary knows just as well as I know that there are two men in prison at this moment, that these two men were put there by the word of one police officer without the slightest corroboration, and are there simply because they are foreigners and are supposed to be Communists. There was not a shred of evidence except that they had attended a meeting at Highbury Corner which was said to be a Communist meeting. The Home Secretary has told us that he is able to do that kind of thing under the powers conferred upon him by this pernicious Act, and it is because of that that two English people who gave these foreigners shelter were arrested. When the police officer was asked what he had against these English persons, he said they were members of the Communist party. For once we had a magistrate with some commonsense and he said, "It is not yet a crime for a person to belong to a communist organisation." These two people got out, but the foreigners were given six months by another magistrate for a similar kind of offence. I think it is time that was stopped, and I think that no man in peace time should have conferred
upon him the power the Home Secretary has under this Act.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I regret I am unable to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Commander Kenworthy) in this question. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is desirous of opening the gates of England to every fanatical class of professional agitator and undesirable people who wish to come here.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the Norman barons and murderers who came over here?

Captain EVANS: I do not expect the hon. Members above the Gangway will agree with what I have to say. I suggest that they seem to have lost sight altogether of the fact that England to-day is the only nation that stands for civilisation in Europe. If we are to have people coming to our country and poisoning the minds of our people—[Interruption.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You would not call the Scots aliens?

Captain EVANS: I was not classifying Scotsmen as aliens.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are alien to you.

Captain EVANS: As a Member of the Commercial Committee of this House, I had the honour of travelling in Central Europe, and in Leipsig and Breslau, and as far as Vienna, I came across undesirable people who were anxious to get into England on any pretence. They would only come here for the sole purpose of poisoning the minds of our people and creating unrest. There is another point of view. In Germany there are thousands of waiters very much more efficient than ours. The German temperament is such as to make them better waiters than Englishmen. They are only too anxious to come here, under any disguise, and get employment as waiters in our big hotels. The Labour party seems to lose sight of the fact that we have nearly 2,000,000 unemployed in our country.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Does the hon. Gentleman object to British capitalists working Lascar labour on our ships?

Captain EVANS: That is not the question we are discussing now. I am quite
sure if I commenced to discuss that subject the Deputy-Chairman would call me to order. I want to submit to the Committee that I am certain, if there was any genuine case of a foreigner wanting to come here, if he was a desirable person on a business mission, the Home Secretary would be the last man to hold him up. I do hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have listened for the last few days to the speeches delivered in this House. Before I go further I want to draw your attention to the fact that Members have just started on the other side immediately below the Gangway, and I am warning you, Sir, that I will not take anything from any of them. Like my colleagues, whatever I say I will never withdraw. You may call us aliens or by any other name. It makes no difference to us what we are designated in this House. We have come to put forward a point of view, not to sue for peace with the capitalist class, but to fight the capitalist class. Certainly we are aliens to your point of view. I have no desire, neither have my colleagues whom I have just left, and whom this House has the audacity to expel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is travelling away from the proposal which is under discussion just now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know it is very difficult for me to keep within the rules of this House, but the House can take it from me that it will never concern me very much whether I obey the rules of the House or not. I have delivered the message which I have been sent to deliver.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will submit to my guidance he will have no difficulty in abiding by the rules of the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have no desire to quarrel with you, Sir, or with any individual, but in order to put my point of view I will quarrel with the entire House. Now, as to this alien question, it is ridiculous for me, having read the history of the British Empire, and knowing it as I do, to think that here we have men assembled in this day and generation, to pose before the world as the last
speaker did, and express the sentiment which surges through the average mind in this House, that the British race is the greatest race in the world. They believe they are a heaven-born race sent here to rule, and that all is better and well in our native land through their ruling—the murderers that they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I know that little Rule. I do not require to withdraw, and I pay no attention to your cries of, "Order, order!" and I will go on and whip you. How far back are we going to go with this Aliens Act, or with this idea of keeping aliens out of the country? What about the Cecils when they came over from Normandy along with William the Conqueror? Are we to go back to their time, when they murdered and ravaged throughout the length and breadth of Britain? Is this to be retrospective back to William the Conqueror's time? Let us have some retrospective legislation here. What did they do at that time—some of the characters who fill the Treasury Bench and whom some people designate as "my Noble Lord"? As I have told you already, I never address them as "my Noble Lord" because I do not believe they are noble. I believe they are ignoble.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has not got anything to do with the Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I bow to your ruling, Captain Fitzroy. I am in no hurry.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will obey my ruling and keep to the Act which is under discussion he will have no trouble in keeping in order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The question before the Committee at the moment is that of aliens and I am telling the Committee about some of the aliens who are living on the flesh and blood of the British working class, and who have always done so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No doubt the Act under discussion has to do with aliens, but not with the aliens to whom the hon. Member is referring. This Act is a continuance of an Act of 1914 and the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, Sir; I agree with you. Nevertheless, it is very neces-
sary. [Laughter.] Why some people should be laughing at the moment is beyond me, because this is a very serious point to the people whom the Labour men represent here. Who was it that was responsible for bringing the aliens into Lanarkshire? It was the Bairds of Gartsherrie. Why did they bring the aliens there? Before that the same gang in Scotland brought the Irish into Scotland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the Act now under discussion, which is, to keep in existence certain emergency powers passed during the War, should similar emergencies occur in the future.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am using this point for illustration, and if I understand the rules of the House aright—and I have as my guides those who are supposed to be experts on those rules—I am quite justified in using those illustrations at the moment. Now, Captain Fitzroy, I hope you will allow me to proceed. I do not want to breathe out any threat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] What do we find are the aliens who are barred from coming into this country? Who are they? From what class do they come? I believe there are two distinct classes in society, the class that have and the class that have not. The class that have is the class who, if they had to work could not do it. I wish I had a British audience to look at them. They would agree with my condemnation of them.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The speech the hon. Member is making would have been more suitable to yesterday's Debate. Really, the hon. Member must confine himself to the particular Bill now under discussion, or I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who are the section of the community that is barred from getting into Britain? They are aliens of the working class. There would be no objection raised, as my colleague has said, if Mussolini were coming here. You would have welcomed the Tsar here had it not been for the Labour movement in 1915. He would have been welcomed here, but the Labour movement was too powerful. What do we find when the Portuguese rise in revolt? They chase King Manuel out of Lisbon,
the capital of Portugal. Where does he come to? That haven of rest—Britain! Was there any objection to him? No. Why? Because he belonged to the King class, to that organisation. There are quite a number of them unemployed, and there will be more unemployed in the same class, with all their paraphenalia, and what not. This is a very serious question for the Labour movement. Had it not been so, and because of the trend of development in the Labour movement, I would not have intervened now. This blow is aimed at the working classes by the Government of the country who wish to prohibit people coming into the country, and the people they wish to keep out are the working classes. The British Empire is made up of countries all over the world and the Union Jack—that rag—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—which floats in every clime—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has made an offensive observation about the flag. I think he ought to withdraw that.

Mr. NEWBOLD: On a point of Order. How much profit have hon. Members opposite made out of the flag? Is not that the ground of their objection, that this is spoiling the goodwill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I had no intention, Captain Fitzroy, of being offensive.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Member entitled to continue his speech without withdrawing the observation he made about the Union Jack?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I called upon him to withdraw, and the hon. Member said he did not mean anything offensive. I called the attention of the hon. Member for Dumbarton to the fact that he had made a remark which was obviously offensive to a large section of the Committee, and I expressed the hope that he would say that he did not mean anything offensive.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I did not mean to be offensive, but they feel that I am lashing them.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has made an observation insulting to the people of the whole Empire.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether, when an hon. Member rises, ostensibly to raise a point of Order, he is in order in taking advantage of that opportunity merely to express an opinion of his own?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton made an offensive remark and I said that he was not in order, and I called his attention to it. He has now stated that he did not mean it to be offensive.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can you. Mr. Deputy-Chairman, inform the Committee how a remark can be offensive to an hon. Member who breaks his pledged word to the people to whom he gave it?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope the Committee will understand, and that the Government will take into account, that when they bring anything forward such as this regarding aliens, and put on strictures that are going to affect the welfare of the people of our country, we shall oppose it. We Socialists recognise that it is because of the part the British Government play all over the world that we are always on the brink of war. It is because of that fact and the way in which this alien question affects the working classes that I am raising my voice here to-night in protest. I know from experience that the British Government and the British ruling class are not to be trusted. They would sell anything in order to make profit, and, therefore, immediately anything is raised in this House or brought in by the Government that is going to affect the welfare of the working classes of this country you can depend upon it that I shall use all the power I have, physical and mental, and every ounce of energy that I have to fight on their behalf. It is in order to let the British ruling classes understand that the Socialist movement is prepared to fight, and will fight, until we carry the Socialist Republic—if necessary at the point of the bayonet—that I have made these observations. Now hon. Members can object as much as they like.

Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend has put a good deal of unnecessary heat into his remarks, and as that does not as a rule commend itself to me I want to recall the Committee as quickly as I may to the subject we are debating. This Bill does not deal with the whole question
or aliens. It only applies to a single section of the Alien Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1919, to Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of that Act. At the time it was passed it was to last for a single year, and it was put forward and defended by the Government as intended to operate only for that period. Before dealing with its temporary character I would like to remind the Committee of its origin, because in its origin we can clearly see why it was intended to be of a temporary character. If the Committee will look at Section 1, Sub-section (1), it will be found that the power under Section (1) of the Aliens Act, 1914, were exercisable in respect of aliens. At any time when war exists between His Majesty and any part of the world, or when it appears there might be imminent national danger or a great emergency, these powers for a period of one year after the passing of this Act were to be exercisable not only in these circumstances but at any time.
Obviously it is easy to see why the powers conferred on the Home Secretary in 1914 were powers which could only be justified in times of war. They were powers for prohibiting the landing of aliens in the United Kingdom, for imposing restrictions and conditions on their landing, for prohibiting aliens embarking, for deporting aliens, for requiring aliens to reside and remain in certain places, and for prohibiting them remaining in certain places. I think I have read enough of these provisions to show how large are the temporary powers which are conferred by this Act upon the Home Secretary. Some reference has been made to the conditions under which this provision was passed in 1919. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley somewhat inaccurately attributed the whole responsibility to Mr. Bottomley, but I think Mr. Bottomley should not enjoy the whole of the glory. He had to share it—

Mr. SHINWELL: He sat on those benches.

Mr. PRINGLE: The proposal was supported by the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett), who is still a Member of the House, and sits now on the same benches as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), so that that recrimination does not apply.

Mr. SHINWELL: I observed that the gentleman to whom the hon Member referred, namely, Mr. Bottomley, who now resides in one of His Majesty's institutions, sat on the same benches as the hon. Member below the Gangway.

Mr. PRINGLE: That is quite irrelevant. He was an independent Member in this House, and never had been a recognised Liberal candidate at any time when he was elected to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] I am quite willing to take any opprobrium that is attached thereto, but it is quite irrelevant as an argument. The hon. Member for North Salford, who was then, and is now, a Labour Member, was equally responsible, for he supported the same proposal then. I wanted to point out also that the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and the right hon. Baronet the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were equally responsible. It will be found in the Debate on the 15th April, 1919. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman. It was only the exceptional fervour of his Friend above the Gangway that led me to introduce his name.

Mr. SHINWELL: My observation still holds good.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Bottomley was not on our benches, so do not talk nonsense.

Mr. PRINGLE: I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen would be really anxious to get at the facts. I said nothing opprobrious about Mr. Bottomley or about his political opinions; I as merely pointing out that he was not solely responsible for the provision in question, but that the hon. and learned Member for York and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were also enlisted in the same interest, and not only that, but authority they quoted at that time, in the main, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).

Mr. SHINWELL: Another Liberal!

Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, but not of our brand. There is also a certain variety in the strength of the Socialism above the Gangway. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not last night!"] But you were brought to heel last night. During the Debate to
which I have referred, a very admirable passage from the Bristol speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was quoted, namely:
I am glad the programme is accepted. We mean to go through with it. [A Voice: 'What about the Germans in the country?'] Oh, they will not be long in this country: they are going to be fired out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th April, 1919; col. 2774, Vol. 114.]
I am quoting this to show the conditions and the atmosphere in which this provision was carried through, and even under those conditions, and in that atmosphere, it could only be carried for one year. We are entitled to point out now that the conditions have altered, the atmosphere has changed. There were some reverberations of that feeling on the benches opposite during the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, but I should not think that they were altogether characteristic now of the benches opposite, particularly now that the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin sits on the Front Bench, and is such an admirable leader of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee. It was in relation to Germans, and for the purpose of dealing with Germans, that this provision was passed. We know what happened in the Debate, and during the Committee stage the same thing occurred. Amendments were proposed during the Committee stage by Sir Ernest Wild, who now holds a judicial post to which he has been fittingly promoted in the City of London, to make this provision permanent and the Government of that day resisted it. The present First Commissioner of Works was at that time Under-Secretary at the Home Office and he opposed making this provision permanent. He said it would only be temporary and it was on the ground that it was temporary that even under those conditions the House accepted it. All these conditions have changed. We are not worried about the Germans to-day. [Interruption.] I am surprised that a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is worried about Germans. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is the most popular man in Germany to-day. His articles have a large circulation in the German Press. That is an evidence of how much the situation has changed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know the strength of his leader. Friends
who have returned from Berlin tell me the people of Germany, rightly or wrongly, now pin their faith to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Captain A. Evans), who is still worried about the Germans, cannot be keeping pace with the progress of his right hon. leader. He must be more up to date. But it is not only the right hon. Gentleman. The Government has changed also. Let us look at the international situation in relation to this matter. Why should we worry about keeping out the Germans when we are not building armaments against the Germans now? We are building armaments against other people—against the French and the Japanese. The whole question of the restriction of aliens depends on international conditions, and I am entitled to show that the international conditions under which this Aliens Restriction Section was introduced into the Bill have entirely altered. There is not an hon. Member who will deny it. Take the statement that was made by the Prime Minister the other day. It is a clear indication that the whole international situation has altered. We have passed a Section of an Act of Parliament for the purpose particularly of excluding people of a single nation—to put them out and keep them out. I could multiply the quotations I have given. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was one of the sponsors of this policy. He is now seeking to get a settlement to save Germany. Then he was waiting to do something which would do as much harm to the Germans as possible. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is quite consistent. It is only that the international conditions have changed and he is in office and he was not before. All the conditions have changed and I think the House is bound to review the policy. The Home Secretary, I think, cannot challenge my point of the change of the international situation. We are not wanting to make Germany pay now. They talk about it still, but they do not mean it. What they are after now is to let Germany off.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's observations have really nothing to do with the subject of aliens.

Mr. PRINGLE: I submit that I am entitled to review the conditions under which this Section was passed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be more in order if he reviewed the conditions under which it is to be continued. This is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is not necessary to review the whole past. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the future.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am very sorry. It was precisely when I turned to the existing conditions that you called me to order. If I am in order in dealing with the existing conditions I will pursue the matter. I may be wrong about existing conditions, but I understand I shall still be in order although I am erroneous. I have been endeavouring to deal with the great change in the conditions as they formerly existed. I do not intend to cite any more quotations from those unhappy Debates of 1919. Undoubtedly, the alien danger as it was then represented to this House no longer exists. The extent of the danger, even of that time, was regarded as comparatively so small that the Government of that day believed that it was necessary only to have these powers for a single year. They have been continued year by year since. During all that time there has been the gradual process of change till we have reached the present situation, and the present Government is seeking, in the words of the Prime Minister, to have a condition of general peace and reconciliation. If we are to have general peace and reconciliation, we should not have Measures on the Statute Book which are intended to differentiate against any particular people on the Continent. If we are to have real peace, which is the aim and desire of us all, then these exclusive provisions which differentiate against the people of any particular country should be excluded immediately from the Statute Book. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) attacked the administration of the Home Secretary. He gave certain cases to show not only that it is unwise to entrust such arbitrary powers to a single Minister, but that those powers have, in fact, been unfairly used. I do not intend to add further to that case. I have no personal experience as to the way in which the powers are exercised at the present moment. The real burden which falls on the Home Secretary in asking for the continuance of this Section is not whether
he has used them wisely or unwisely. The real question is, are they necessary? I do not believe arbitrary powers can ever be used altogether wisely. The right hon. Gentleman had some trouble with some other arbitrary powers not long ago, and while I believe he acted with the best of motives there is no doubt that he will not say, even now, that he acted wisely.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Very successfully!

Mr. PRINGLE: I was merely citing that as an illustration of the danger, almost certainty, that arbitrary powers will be unwisely used. As it is certain that arbitrary powers will be unwisely used we are entitled to ask from the right hon Gentleman that a really substantial case should be made out for their necessity. I pointed out that they were directed against Germans in the first place. In view of our present relations with Germany, obviously they cannot be directed against Germans now. The question now is, Against whom are they necessary? Is it the Communists? Is it necessary to exclude the allies of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold)? Have we reached such a depth in this country that the Government are afraid of a few Communists stump orators coming in and talking at street corners?

Mr. NEWBOLD: They will get through anyway!

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not believe that these provisions are ever really effective against people who want to come to this country. But, granting them to be effective, the very fact that we have them on the Statute Book is a matter of which we ought to be ashamed. That a country so great as this should resort to such a contemptible Measure for dealing with such a small negligible problem is a thing which this Parliament ought to bring to an end. We have now had four years of this legislation, three years longer than was intended by Parliament. The whole international situation has been revolutionised in that time. In the circumstances, unless the right hon. Gentleman can put up a case that greater danger may arise from some other quarter of the international horizon, the Committee will be bound to insist on eliminating this mean contemptible provision from the Statute Book.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The last speaker has asked me to show why it is necessary to retain this provision. I hope that I shall be able to show in fewer words than have been used by some of the speakers why it is necessary. The power of making Orders to exclude aliens depends on this Section. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the state of affairs in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, knows that if we had not power to exclude aliens this country would be flooded with aliens, whether desirable or undesirable, from those parts of Europe, and it is perfect madness to suppose that we should allow at this moment, when we have over 1,000,000 unemployed, free emigration into this country. It is true that this legislation was originally passed when there was a different kind of emergency, but the present emergency is sufficient. I should like to see the hon. Gentlemen who spoke last go down to their constituents and make there the speeches which they have made here to-night.

Mr. PRINGLE: I have made them there already.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very glad to hear it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have made them, and made them in your constituency and brought down your majority.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I never had such a large majority as after the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) said properly that this was not a question of how these powers were exercised. It is impossible to use them to everybody's satisfaction, and it is certainly not easy to exercise them consistently. But the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley accused me of exercising them for political reasons. I entirely repudiate that charge. He cited a particular case. I am not sure whether it is the case which I have in my own mind, because he took care not to mention the name.

Mr. LANSBURY: Tyorni is the name. He happens to be a Swede and not a Russian, as was discovered after seven weeks.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The case to which I thought the hon. Member was referring was that of a man who came in on a false passport.

Mr. LANSBURY: And you did bring him to trial?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He was charged with having a false passport.

Mr. LANSBURY: He was not charged when he was put in prison.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If people choose to disobey the laws of this country they cannot be excused because they happen to be Communists.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. LANSBURY: The whole point is that the Home Secretary has the power of putting a man in prison, and when he is asked to bring the man to trial he quotes some section of this Act which gives him power to put the man there. That is a power which he ought not to possess.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not admit the charge at all. A man may be political—

Mr. LANSBURY: You do not bring him to trial. That is the point.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know what case is referred to.

Mr. LANSBURY: But you do know! I will produce the correspondence. I have got your own letter.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member had better put the case into writing. He has brought an enormous number to my notice.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, and they are all the same, and you cannot deny it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I absolutely deny that anybody could have been proceeded against for any reason, except that he had violated the laws of this country, and the fact that a man happens to be a Communist does not exonerate him from obeying the law.

Mr. LANSBURY: But he was not proceeded against. That is my point.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member had better send me full particulars of the case. It does not make the slightest difference to my argument. He knows perfectly well that to admit immigration freely from all over Europe, would flood this country with men and women who would compete in the labour market.

Mr. LANSBURY: We all agree about that.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is the reason that I ask to have this Section kept in force. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood), after his poisonous speech just now has retired, said it was a question of the working classes, and so it is; it is to protect British workingmen that I want this Section kept in. I have had to exclude cases which, to my mind, are cases of great hardship; I have done it with great regret, but I have got to think of the people of this country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I cannot be interrupted. I listened patiently to several very long speeches he has made to-day. I was trying to point out that I had to deal hardly with a certain number of cases, Germans and other people, who wanted to come back to this country. I quite admit they were hard cases, but if they had come here they would have taken the work out of the hands of British workmen, whose homes would have been suffering, and their cases would have been every bit as hard as the cases of these aliens; and I say it was my duty, and I am not the least afraid of saying so anywhere, to consider the position of British working men, especially at a time of unemployment like the present. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) said this was used, or might be used, to interfere with foreigners who wished to trade with this country. It is not used in that way. If they wish to come and trade here, they can come and trade here, but they cannot reside here if they are going to take work which the British pople can do. They can come and trade here. He said also that the British trader might be retaliated upon by foreign countries by not being allowed to go and reside there. If the effect of retaining this Section is to prevent the hon. and gallant Gentleman from settling down in some foreign country across the seas, I will do my best to remedy that. It is not in the least likely to have that effect, and he would be welcome in any country. I merely recapitulate that not only am I representing the views of my own party, but the views of the enormous majority of the working men of this
country, when I say that to divest myself of a power like this, at this moment, would be disastrous to employment in this country.

Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not think I shall annoy the Home Secretary by making a very long speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thank God!"] Whether that particular observation is likely to make it much shorter I leave to the Committee to decide, but I want to deal with one point which has not been dealt with at all here—

Mr. SHINWELL: I rise to a point of Order, Captain Fitzroy. I wish to ask your ruling whether it is proper for an hon. Member to interject with the observation, "Thank God"? Is not that an improper observation to make as an interjection when an hon. Member is speaking.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The observation did not reach me.

Mr. HEMMERDE: I am so used to that sort of observation from people who do not speak themselves, except by way of interruption, that I hardly noticed it. The whole trouble of these very arbitrary powers, against many of which I protested when they were first brought in, is that you cannot possibly prevent officials from abusing those powers. I want to give to the Home Secretary one or two cases which show why those powers are so offensive to people in this country, and why powers that might be necessary in some ways are grossly abused in others. For instance, I find that on many occasions people come before me for trial or on appeal, and I have to deal with the question of recommending them for deportation, and I always do it now with the full knowledge that whatever we recommend makes no difference at all.
In the old days, when a man was to be deported from this country, there had to be a recommendation for deportation of some judicial person. Now that is not so. Not only is it not so, but I will give the Home Secretary one case in my own experience, which shows how grossly official powers may be abused if you are going to extend them to this extent. A short time ago, a man—an American citizen—was tried in this country at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Darling. He had been over here for some 20 years; and was married to
an English girl, and had children here. When the trial was over and he was convicted, the police were asked what they had to say. They said that so far as they knew they did not at all support the recommendation for deportation. It was a first offence, and the Judge refused to make any recommendation for deportation. Counsel concerned in the case was ready, with evidence, if necessary, for dealing with that question, if there had been any attempt to bring forward evidence against this man's character.
The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Nothing was ever brought forward there, and no recommendation for deportation was ever made by any judicial person. In fact, the Senior Judge of the King's Bench Division definitely refused to make it. A short time afterwards, without any judicial officer at all intervening, the Home Office, under pressure from the police, deported that person, leaving his English wife in this country unsupported. I ask anyone who has any idea of fairplay in this country whether we are going to give the police that power? The police in all counties rejoice in that sort of arbitrary exercise of power. I could give several other instances from my experience of cases coming before me in Liverpool where these powers, which were meant to enforce war needs and war regulations, were abused by officious persons simply to carry out their own arbitrary ideas of their functions I ask the Home Secretary whether that sort of thing is to be permitted under his regime? The case I am alluding to did not take place while he was Home Secretary, but that sort of case can take place under these Regulations, and that is why I shall always vote against Regulations of that sort until they are clearly shown to me to be necessary. I cannot understand what conceivable justification there can be for extending powers to keep out aliens, for deporting aliens who are not enemy aliens in any way, who may have caused annoyance to one or two influential persons. The case I have cited was particularly odious, because the prosecutor in that case was one of the richest men in this country, and, whatever may be the fact, the public cannot help having the feeling that a man has been deported without trial and against the Judge's recommendation merely
because strong influences can be brought to work.
I want to make this point, and this point only. I know we have not a chance really of preventing this Act remaining on the Statute Book at the present time, but I ask the Home Secretary, if it is necessary for him to be armed with these powers, to see that these powers are not abused, to see that the police are kept in check and are not encouraged by extra-judicial decisions to go far beyond the needs of the situation. If we can feel that these powers, necessary as they may be at this moment, are not abused, we shall be very much more prepared to support the Home Secretary's arguments for keeping them all for certain purposes only.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Home Secretary wants to make out that it is our desire to allow alien labour to enter this country. Nothing of the sort. Without this Act, powers exist for preventing the landing of undesirable aliens in this country. What we want to do is to remove the stigma on certain nationalities in the Act of 1919. We think that was contrary to the whole spirit of the peace which we ought to work for. Orders should be given that all bona fide business men coming for business reasons to this country, say for the period of a month, should be given a visa without reference to headquarters in London. Otherwise business will be lost to these people. If permission is not given to land until there is reference to London there is bound to be delay. For these reasons I insist on pressing the Amendment to a Division, and I hope that all hon. Members who have recovered their senses after the fever of the War, will support it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to put a case to the Home Secretary and to ask him if such a case will be dealt with

in the future as in the past, in the event of these powers being Continued. A German and his wife came to this country 30 odd years ago. The man played an important part in developing at British collieries German coke ovens. They had no family when they came here. Afterwards they had three sons and three daughters, all born in England. The three sons married English girls and the three daughters married Englishmen. Because of the War the parents were sent to Germany, after all these years' residence in England, both being over 70. They now desire to come back to live with their sons and daughters and are prepared to be excluded from any sort of pension. They do not want any work. Their sons and daughters are prepared to maintain them and have given a written undertaking to do so. I ask the Home Secretary, is it fair, under these or any powers, to separate parents from children in a case like this?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Every case is conducted on its merits, and if, in this particular case, the man and the woman who desire to come back would not be competitors in the British labour market, that would be in their favour. One of the main influences in deciding these cases is the question of whether or not the immigrant will become a competitor with British labour.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: That case has already been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: rose—

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 131.

Division No. 294.]
AYES.
[11.20 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Bruford, R.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Berry, Sir George
Bruton, Sir James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Henry B.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Butcher, Sir John George


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Butt, Sir Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blundell, F. N.
Cadogan, Major Edward


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Banks, Mitchell
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Brass, Captain W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barnston, Major Harry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Becker, Harry
Briggs, Harold
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Chapman, Sir S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Clayton, G. C.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Houfton, John Plowright
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major William
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hume, G. H.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian. N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jephcott, A. R.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Doyle, N. Grattan
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Ellis, R. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Lord


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lort-Williams, J.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lougher, L.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Flanagan, W. H.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Manville, Edward
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser


Furness, G. J.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Ganzoni, Sir John
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Garland, C. S.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, C. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Nall, Major Joseph
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wallace, Captain E.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Halstead, Major D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pease, William Edwin
Wise, Frederick


Harrison, F. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblangue
Wolmer, Viscount


Harvey, Major S. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perring, William George
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, Basil E.



Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Price, E. G.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Privett, F. J.
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Ede, James Chuter
Hinds, John


Adams, D.
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hirst, G. H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Fairbairn, R. R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Attlee, C. R.
Foot, Isaac
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Barnes, A.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Batey, Joseph
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Greenall, T.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bonwick, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jewett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Bowdler, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jewitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Brotherton, J.
Groves, T.
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
Lansbury, George


Buckie, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawson, John James


Burgess, S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Leach, W.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lee, F.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Harbord, Arthur
Linfield, F. C.


Chapple, W. A.
Hardie, George D.
Lunn, William


Collison, Levi
Harris, Percy A.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Darbishire, C. W.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
M'Entee, V. L.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
March, S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Duffy, T. Cavan
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Duncan, C.
Herriotts, J.
Millar, J. D.


Dunnico, H.
Hill, A.
Morel, E. D.




Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Salter, Dr. A.
Warne, G. H.


Murnin, H.
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Newbold, J. T. W.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Westwood, J.


O'Grady, Captain James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Oliver, George Harold
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, W.


Paling, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Parker, H. (Hanley)
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wright, W.


Richards, R.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thornton, M.



Riley, Ben
Tillett, Benjamin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ritson, J.
Tout, W. J.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan


Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Jones.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (17).
This is a very curious omission from the Bill. I find, after some difficulty in searching for it, that the Sale of Food Order 1921, No. 1305, Part I deals with the sale of bread, and says that it has to be sold by weight and not otherwise; that bread shall weigh so much, a lb. or two oz, as the case may be, and that a person authorised by the local authority or an inspector of weights and measures may require a person offering bread for sale to weigh it. Either these provisions are good or bad. If these powers are good, we ought to have a permanent Statute. If they are bad, we ought not to be asked to continue them in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. What I do object to is that the Government have so badly organised or arranged the time of the House; or it may be owing to a lack of oversight, or the goodwill of the House, or because they do not think it is policy to introduce permanent legislation to pursue this method. That is my argument and that is why I have this Amendment on the Paper in respect to the Sale of Food Order, 1921.
The second part of the Order deals with the labelling of imported produce. It seems to me to be a strange commentary on the labours of the Merchandise Marks Bill Committee, that it is now considered necessary to continue this provision. It deals with imported meat, and says that where imported or frozen meat is exposed for sale it must be so marked. It also deals with the importation of eggs although it is not so ridiculous as to provide that each egg should be marked. It says that where foreign eggs are offered
for sale they must have the word "imported" displayed in some prominent place on the basket or box containing the eggs when they are exposed for sale. If the Government have now thrown their mantle over the Merchandise Marks Bill, why is it necessary to continue this provision? Before we decide to continue this particular part of the Act we ought to be told what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Merchandise Marks Bill. Will they give facilities for the Bill this Session, or are they going to say nothing more about it? From a purely party point of view, it would be a great advantage to the Opposition to allow that measure to pass, but looking at this question from a national point of view it is a bad measure, and I hope the Government will not pursue any such foolishness. I have moved this Amendment in order to obtain some enlightenment on these points.

Mr. J. JONES: I think the time has arrived when some of us should make a protest against the practice of putting down Amendments for the purpose of hearing certain Members talk. If they had the courage to go to a Division, I would go with them, but I object to them continually putting down Amendments and then, when the critical moment comes, refusing to take a Division. I do not want to hear the Hon. and Gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) showing off his oratorical abilities. We are tired of hearing speeches. We want to get on with the business. So far as I am concerned, Merchandise Marks or any other kind of marks will not affect our position. We are out to fight all the time against the Government. But this kind of warfare is not fighting at all. It is simply playing at fighting. If the Hon. Members are not prepared to stand by their Amendments,
they should not propose them. I am making this protest as an ordinary rank and file Member. I never hope to be in a seat on the Front Bench. I want to protest most emphatically against this practice of play-acting. I have been to-night to see the Marionettes at the Coliseum. I have come back here to see their replicas. I protest against the attitude of some Hon. Members who merely talk for the sake of hearing themselves talk. They might just as well talk into a gramophone and then any one who liked could listen to them in their own homes.

Mr. HANNON: The part of the Amendment on the Paper in which I take particular interest relates to the part of the Food Order that deals with the selling of the heads, and I should like to recall to the attention of the Committee what took place in this House on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill last year. When this Order came up for discussion an hon. Member opposite claimed that it was to the interests of the consumers of the country that this particular part of the Order should remain in force while the remainder could go. To my astonishment and to the astonishment of many other hon. Members the representative of the Board of Trade accepted an Amendment to that effect which was moved from the Opposition benches. The whole tendency is these days is to get rid as far as possible of unwarranted interference by the State and of the restrictions imposed wholly and solely for the purposes of the War. The rationing of the food of the people was of primary importance and it was perfectly right that Orders of this kind should be made, but last year every one agreed that the time had come when these Orders might be eliminated from the Statute book. At the time this was under consideration last year a Committee was appointed to consider which Orders should be retained and which should be rejected and the Chairman of that Committee (Major-General Seely) in the Report he presented to the House embodied the following paragraph:
Your Committee are therefore of opinion that the system of extending the continuation of the temporary law by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act is far from being a safeguard of the rights of members, and is, in fact, to some extent liable to become a menace to those rights, inasmuch
as experimental legislation is by this means continued from year to year.
I submit that the Order, so far as it deals with the sale of bread to the people of this country on the basis of an even number of pounds, is now obsolete—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and ought to be struck out of our system. The whole of this grandmotherly legislation which followed upon the War, ought to be abolished, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade, in dealing with this matter, will leave the free come-and-go trade in bread to develop in its own way, and will not continue legislation of this kind in the future.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want to make quite clear to the Committee exactly where we stand in this matter. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) referred, quite rightly, to the fact that the inclusion of the Sale of Food Order in the Act of last year was due to the instrumentality of a former Member of the House, who belonged to the co-operative movement. I repeat what I have said before in this Chamber, that the co-operative movement can claim to speak for consumers. There is no body in this country that can claim to speak for consumers to the same extent. Its last two annual congresses have unanimously passed resolutions asking the President of the Board of Trade to retain the sale of bread by weight. The hon. Member says that this provision is entirely a War measure. Has he forgotten that there were recommendations on this matter from the Select Committee on Short Weight in 1914? That Committee had its origin, not in the War, but in the abuses which had crept in before the War commenced. The Select Committee on Short Weight made a general recommendation, which had to be put into effect, and which became more urgent, perhaps, because of the abuses which crept in during the early stages of the War period. I would remind the hon. Member also, with regard to the position last year, that the Government last year were so concerned about the claims of consumers in this country to permanent protection in this matter that they introduced a Bill dealing with the sale of bread, and I think the President of the Board of Trade will admit that it was not for any of the reasons advanced by the hon. Member to-night that that Bill
was withdrawn, but because difficulties were found in Government circles in getting the Bill accepted by our Scottish friends owing to the fact that there was some ambiguity in the interpretation Clause as to exactly how it would affect Scotland, and exactly what classes of bread in Scotland would be brought within the terms of the Bill. In order to clear up the matter, and because some of my hon. Friends on these Benches thought they were speaking for co-operative societies in regard to it, I went to the trouble of calling a conference in Glasgow last October, to ascertain the true Scottish position in co-operative circles with regard to the sale of bread. I got together representatives of nearly 200 societies, with some hundreds of thousands of members, to discuss nothing else but the sale of bread, and there was an overwhelming majority of the rank and file of Scottish co-operators, expressed in open congress, for permanent legislation in Scotland for the sale of bread by weight, so that it might not be confined, as in the past under the Scottish Police Acts, to the 2-lb. and 4-lb. loaf, known as a batch loaf, but might be extended to include the widely used pan loaf, which is very similar to the ordinary batch loaf. In view of these facts, it is perfectly fatuous for the hon. Member for Moseley—briefed at short notice, probably by particular capitalistic interests in the baking trade, or by some baking federation—to lay a case before this Committee for the abolition of a piece of legislation which is vital in the interests of working-class consumers to-day; and, in face of the Government's specific pledges, again and again given to the House, to make permanent by legislation the Sale of Food Order relating to bread, to say that it is time to drop this Order, and to leave consumers once more to the mercy of those who want to give short weight and make extra profits out of that which is essential to the life of the people.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The Amendment deals not merely with the Order dealing with bread but also with the marking of meat and eggs. I could not possibly accept that composite Amendment, and if it is divided upon I should certainly ask the Committee to vote against it. Let me deal first of all with Part III, which relates to marking. The
hon. and gallant Gentleman himself said he regarded it as non-obnoxious. I believe it is non-obnoxious, and it is certainly regarded as of great value by a great many hon. Members. The fact that the Merchandise Marks Bill, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman resisted, has taken some time in Committee is a reason for keeping the Order on. When the Order is reaffirmed by substantive legislation it will be possible to withdraw this part of the Order.

Mr. PRINGLE: Then we understand it is not going through this year?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, the hon. Member is to understand nothing more than what I am saying. If and when such a Bill goes through, it would be quite possible, having affirmed by substantive legislation the provisions of this Order, for me to withdraw the Order, which I can do at any time. But until such time as that Bill goes through it will be for the general convenience that this Part, at any rate, of the Order should be retained, and I propose certainly to retain Part III of the Order regarding the marking of meat and eggs. As regards Part I, do not think my hon. Friend has quite put the whole of the case. It is true that the Bill was introduced on the last occasion without that part of the Order being in, but it was put in in response to a very general demand in all quarters of the House. I was amazed at the small opposition to the Order. When it came to a Division, only about nine just persons were found in addition to the two tellers, of whom my hon. Friend was one, and certainly local authorities have been very strongly in favour of this Committee. After all it is not one of these terrible pieces of coercion. All it says is that people are to sell bread by weight, and a fair weight. It is true it was the intention of the Government to pass a short Bill re-enacting it because I quite agree if you are to have this kind of legislation it is better to have it in an Act than by Orders. But there were certain difficulties about it. The Scottish people, who apparently have a great predilection in favour of control, wanted to go a good deal further than the English people and we could not have proceeded very rapidly with this Bill, though I hope we can get an agreed Bill which may go through. If this simple Order is opposed I must ask the Committee un-
hesitatingly to affirm it. But there has been a recent decision of a stipendiary magistrate—and I believe a right decision according to the law—that the Order which was intended merely to say that people had to sell bread in one pound or multiples of a pound has been held to be contravened where a person sells a three pound loaf although the loaf actually weighs three pounds. That does not seem to be at all a reasonable position. What was intended was that you should sell a one, two, three, or four pound loaf and that it ought to weigh its proper proportion, and I must say that I think it was unfortunate that a prosecution should have been instituted against a firm who were selling a loaf that was very popular in the district and about which there was no dispute in the weight. It was a 3-lb. loaf and weighed 3 lbs., but on the strict law of these regulations the magistrate felt bound to convict. I feel bound to put that to the Committee although my hon. Friend did not put it. Therefore, I feel that in those circumstances, the Order going beyond what was the common impression when we put it in last year, I ought to leave this, if it is challenged, to a free vote of the House as regards Part I, though I am bound to say that I should think very few local authorities if, as I believe they do, they generally wish to maintain this provision in the spirit rather than in the extreme letter of the law, will institute prosecutions against people who contravene it in this way. In view of the fact that there is this difficulty which we have never encountered before, and of the fact that I have no power to amend the Order—if I had power it would be a simple matter, because I could say that it would not be even multiples of a pound, but one, two, three, or four pounds. I feel I should be doing the fairest thing if I left the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to a free vote of the Committee, if he really wishes to press it. As regards the composite Amendment regarding Part III, I should oppose that.

Mr. ACLAND: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether your predecessor, Mr. Chairman, having put the Question, "That paragraph 17 stand part of the
Schedule," it is possible to go back and make Amendments of certain parts of the paragraph?

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the Question, "That the whole of the words of the Schedule proposed to be left out stand part," has been put?

Mr. ACLAND: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: Then I am afraid that does not save any part of it. It would be possible, if desired and if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) were to ask leave to withdraw, and his Amendment were withdrawn by consent, to put the minor Amendment.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The statement to which we have just listened from the President of the Board of Trade leaves the Committee in a very extraordinary position to-night. As I understand it, so far as the general Order is concerned, my right hon. Friend is in agreement with keeping it upon the Statute Book and continuing the matter for another year. But he comes forward to-night and says that because a stipendiary magistrate has given a decision in connection with a particular weight of bread and that a certain result in his opinion may follow this matter must be left to a free vote of the Committee.

Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Have you not decided that the Question moved by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) cannot be discussed, and is the hon. Member (Sir K. Wood), therefore, in order?

The CHAIRMAN: It can be discussed as part of the whole Question, but it cannot now be put separately.

Sir K. WOOD: This position is very extraordinary. Because a magistrate in a minor court has given a decision which has never been tested in the High Court or elsewhere, this matter, which is a very important one, is to be left to the free vote of the Committee. If there has been a mistake made in the law the obvious remedy for my right hon. Friend is to put it right.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I made it clear in my speech that I had no power to amend the Order.

Sir K. WOOD: I am prepared to accept that statement of the law, but that does not affect the question of principle. If there is a defect in the law, it should be put right. What the Committee has to decide to-night is whether it is to continue this provision which, as I understand, is a very necessary provision. When I was on the London County Council there were many cases arising in which it was proved that this particular order was most necessary. Why should not people who sell bread by weight be required to show whether the weight is right or not? Where is the injustice in a provision of that kind? I cannot understand the argument of my right hon. Friend as to the consequences which are to follow because a police magistrate says that a particular kind of loaf cannot be sold. If there is some defect in the present law which in the opinion of this very learned magistrate may exist, the obvious remedy is to put it right. I hope that if the matter is left to the free vote of the Committee, the Committee will decide that if people are to sell bread by weight at any rate the weight shall be properly tested.

12 M.

Major BURNIE: As this case arose in my constituency, Bootle, and was tried in an adjoining constituency in Liverpool, I cannot understand the description "minor magistrate" as applied to a magistrate who has to decide as to the bread consumed by 700,000 people. If this is left to the free vote of the House we are in rather a quandary. The people of Liverpool want their bread weighed by the lb. What they wish to buy is a 3-lb. loaf for 6d. This order says that the loaf must weigh an even number of lbs. It has been laid down by the magistrate that an even number is 1 lb., 2, 4, 6 or 8 lbs., but shopkeepers cannot sell a 3-lb. loaf. They can cut the 3-lb. loaf into 2 lb. and 1 lb., and sell it in two pieces, but they cannot sell it in one piece. This is most ridiculous. The people want the bread to continue to be sold by weight but they want this ridiculous order amended. Into which lobby am I going? We want the bread by weight. At the same time I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he cannot amend this Order. I believe he has powers to amend the Order, so that the people of Bootle and Liverpool can get a 3-lb. loaf for 6d.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised the President of the Board of Trade has said it is impossible for him to make a new Order or vary an existing Order. My recollection is that Part III of the Ministry of Food Continuance Act, 1920, has in fact been varied.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, not varied. The power is to revoke the whole or any part, and part of it was revoked, but I am advised there is no power to revise or vary.

Mr. PRINGLE: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman must insert in the third column, where it speaks of power to make or revoke, the word "vary." If he did that, it would give him the power of varying the Order. I do not suppose there would be any objection to varying the Order to meet the particular case of Bootle. What it is desired to do is to secure that the consumer knows the weight of the bread he is buying. It is not a question of a pound loaf or a 2-lb. loaf or a 4-lb. loaf, as against a 3-lb. loaf, but if people want to buy a 3-lb. loaf they ought to be able to get it. If the schedule were amended in the way I suggest the right hon. Gentleman would have the power of getting over the decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate. There is included in this Amendment the Orders which cover the marking of meat and eggs. I am very much interested in the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman has made. It cannot give a great deal of comfort to the energetic but mute Gentlemen who sat through the Committee stage of the Merchandise Marks Bill, that after all their energy and self-repression they have only this declaration of the President of the Board of Trade. Of course, if the Merchandise Marks Bill were going to pass this Session it would be unnecessary to have this at all, because the existing Order continues until 31st December of this year. Accordingly, when the right hon. Gentleman says it is necessary to have this he obviously contemplates that the Merchandise Marks Bill will not go through before 31st December, 1923. [An HON. MEMBER: "In case of accidents."] We are legislating for the probable and not for the improbable. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, that he regards the passing of the Merchandise Marks Bill as improbable, the Amendment
which we put forward has served the purpose which it was intended to serve. Can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to the first point I put, namely, whether he can accept the words "or varying"?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I cannot accept "or varying." It would not be in order. I do not think the Committee really need be under any anxiety in leaving the Order as it stands. I suggest that the balance of convenience lies there. During all the years that this Regulation has been in force it has never before occurred to any local authority to prosecute a baker for baking to a true weight. If the Committee leaves this in Its present form, I hope no local authority would do that again. I think the general convenience of the Committee and the country would best be served by leaving this as it stands, and trusting the local authority to carry out the spirit of the Order.

Mr. PETO: I beg to move to leave out Paragraph (19).
I rise to move the omission from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. This Act, I should like to make it quite clear to the Committee, has really nothing to do with the Act that was passed through this House in 1912. That Act had the full consideration of the House, and was the deliberate decision, after long debate, of the House. The Act which I propose should be omitted from this long category of Acts of Parliament which is proposed to be continued is really not an Act of Parliament at all. It merely crystallises in the form of an Act of Parliament, an Order made under the Defence of the Realm Act, more generally known as "D.O.R.A.". It is an Order made in 1917, under Regulation 10B. of the Defence of the Realm Act, and when it was first put into an Act of Parliament in 1920 it was expressly provided at the end of the Act that it was to expire on 31st December, 1921, and was to last no longer than that date. It contains in it nothing of value to the retail trader of this country or the employee, excepting an order, which is a
military order of universal application, that every shop in the country is to close on every week night, no matter what the trade or the local requirements may be, at 8 o'clock, and on Saturdays at 9. This is an Act which, in its operation, is supported by and benefits the large universal store, and is aimed at the small retailer, whom it is the desire of these great stores to crush.
I want to show the Committee what this Act does. The first, and not the least important of its actions, is that it supersedes the authority of the Home Office. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs is, I conceive it, the proper and supreme authority under this House for regulating all these local matters. I find, and it was pointed out to me by the Under Secretary of State only a day or two ago—that the sole remnant of the powers conferred on the Home Office in 1912, which remains in the Act of 1920, which I am moving to omit, is that it states:
Provided that the Secretary of State may, for such days as he thinks fit, suspend the operation of the said Order during the Christmas season or in connection with any other special occasion.
All the rest of the powers of the Home Office have vanished under this Military Order passed in 1917, under a state of war. These regulations, enforced on the retail trade at that time, are an anachronism in 1923.
I ask the Committee to consider what were the powers—reasonable, sensible, democratic powers, elastic in their operations—which were given under the Shops Act, 1912. In Section 8, under the subheading in the margin, "The Revocation of Closing Orders," I find that the Secretary of State may at any time, on the application of the local authority, revoke a closing order, either absolutely or so far as it affects a particular class of shops, and if at any time it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the local authority—and I ask the special attention of the Committee to this—that the occupier of a majority of any class of shop to which the closing order applies are opposed to the continuance of the Order, the local authority shall apply to the Secretary of State to revoke the Order in so far as it affects the class of shop, but that any such revocation shall be without prejudice to the
making of any closing order. There we find a reasonable provision worked out and put into an Act of Parliament deliberately, after the Bill was before this House for days, and that is superseded absolutely by this military Order, which is simply put into an Act of Parliament in a single clause, recapitulating in two schedules—one in respect to England and one in respect to Scotland—the Order that was passed in a time of war. But there is much worse in this Act. It not only supersedes all local initiative and all power to decide as to the local requirements of the district. Section 6, which deals with the procedure for making Orders under the 1912 Act, says that whenever a local authority are satisfied that a primâ facie case is made out for making a closing Order, the authority shall give public notice, in the prescribed form of their intention to make an Order. If, after taking into consideration any objections they may have received, the local authority are satisfied that it is expedient to make the Order, and that the occupiers of at least two-thirds of the number of shops to be affected by the Order approve of the Order, they may make the Order. Sub-sections (2) and (3) state:
(2) Notice of the provisions of the Order shall be given and copies thereof supplied in the prescribed manner and the Order shall be submitted to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State shall consider any objections to the Order and may either disallow the Order or affirm the Order with or without Amendment.
(3) As soon as the Secretary of State has affirmed the Order, the Order shall become final and shall have the effect of an Act of Parliament.
Then it goes on to describe how the Order is to be laid on the Table of the House and so forth. There you have a model of peace-time legislation and the very opposite to that which we are asked to continue and which, as I say, was a military authority's order, made under conditions of war in 1917. When it was incorporated in an Act of Parliament it was expressly stated it was not to continue beyond the end of the year 1921. I call attention also to a matter, perhaps one of detail, but of special interest to my constituency. Section 11 of the Act of 1912, the Act which would be operative if the Act of 1920 were not continued, makes
provision for the case of holiday resorts It provides that in places frequented as holiday resorts, during certain seasons of the year the local authority may, by Order, suspend for such period or periods as may be specified, not exceeding in the aggregate four months in the year, the obligations imposed by the Act as to the closing of shops for a weekly half holiday. It is true there is no provision enabling a local authority to suspend the early closing order but this Section indicates that when the House passed the 1912 Act it had in mind the fact that all these small, petty, details referring to closing orders varied in different seasons and different localities, and were proper subject matter for local authorities, subject to the Home Office, and were certainly not matters which should be regulated by any cast-iron order applied to the whole country. Even in the Act of 1912 I notice the sale of milk and cream is exempted from the weekly half-holiday regulation but not from the Early Closing Order and it is worth noting that in the Act of 1912, the sale of intoxicating liquor is free from the provisions both as to early closing and the weekly half-holiday. May I turn to an Act which depends on the Act of 1920, namely the Act of 1921. It goes if the 1920 Act goes, because it is an Act to amend the 1920 Act. I desire to show the Committee, the effect of perpetuating legislation of this class. We are absolutely bound by it. The Home Office is powerless—as was stated in answer to a question which I put the other day—and this House is absolutely powerless, to do anything in this small matter of detail concerning the closing of shops, unless it passes a special Act of Parliament for that purpose. I take the Act of 1921, and read what is called the short title—
This Act may be cited as the Shops (Early Closing) Act (1920) Amendment Act, 1921.
The full title is more illuminating—
An Act to extend the hours during which sweets, chocolates, or other sugar confectionery, or ice cream may be sold to the public.
One of the reasons I move to omit from the Schedule the Act of 1920 is because I protest against the time of the House being wasted by this lollypop and ice-cream legislation. When we have an Act like that of 1912 upon the Statute book, an elastic, sensible, democratic Act,
leaving these small local details to the local authorities and to the majority of the tradesmen affected, it is a perfectly preposterous proposal that we should fetter this House of Commons with the Act of 1920, by which you cannot move your right or left-hand without passing a special Act of Parliament to authorise it, or the selling of sweet-stuffs, ice-cream. For another hour after the closing hour! This is the result of the House attempting to deal with such absurd and petty details! Take the simple consumption of strawberries and cream. It is illegal to sell strawberries and cream after a certain hour, but you can, with perfect legality, sell strawberries and ice cream because the first are soft, fruit, and the second has a special Act of Parliament to itself. Really I do not think I need go very much further—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"]—I want to show the Committee I have got a case, and a very strong case, for omitting this Act altogether! May I point out what is the state of the law at present in regard to some of these Questions? The law is so absurd that some of the stipendiary magistrates have dismissed cases brought under it. Let me quote what the magistrate at West Ham said recently as an argument in favour of our going back to the sensible peace-time legislation of 1912. A publican was prosecuted for serving two shop spies with cigarettes with their drink. The magistrate said that if a sardine on toast had been served with cigarettes it would have been a legal sale, but the publican must not sell a biscuit with a glass of wine as he infringed the Bakers and Confectioners' Order. He could sell a cooked sausage but not a raw sausage or he offended against the Butcher's Order!
What is the unfortunate position of the retailer of refreshments to the public? It is one of complete chaos! Take the case of the shopkeeper without a refreshment-house licence. Before the Shops Act, 1920, came into operation, simply Order under D.O.R.A.—not really an Act of Parliament at all—he could sell all sorts of refreshments for consumption on or off the premises up till ten p.m., and all sorts of refreshments for consumption on or off the premises after
10 p.m. Under the present Law as embodied in the Act of 1920 he is not allowed to sell refreshments off the premises after 8 p.m. except only newly-cooked provisions—tripe, or soft fruit. That is rather a limited and arbitrary limitation to put upon a trade by a special Act of Parliament. But it goes much further than that. Shopkeepers have now got three time-tables to work by. Up to 8 p.m. they can sell all sorts of refreshments. After 8 p.m. they can only sell newly-cooked provisions, etc. After 9.30 p.m.—the Lolly-pop and Ice Cream Act here comes in—it is an offence to sell for consumption off the premises to people, gingerbeer or lemonade with their ice cream. There you have what you may sell before eight o'clock, after eight o'clock, and after nine-thirty o'clock—all articles of ordinary consumption by the public. I trust we shall have something said by the Home Secretary in reply to the important representations I have made to him on behalf of the Dairy Trade in certain seaside resorts to show that the simple way out is to drop this Act altogether.
The Home Secretary told me that he could do nothing in the case I put before him because he had no powers under the Act of 1920 except with regard to Christmas day and a special emergency. If he did make any Order it would apply everywhere. That is my whole case. Under the Act of 1912 we had a system which allowed of local considerations, and had a time-table for holiday seasons and places and the like. The matter was considered by the local authorities, sent up to the Home Office and considered there, and if approved could, by an Order for the locality and for the season, if necessary, be made effective. With regard to these small and essentially local matters I say that that is the proper way not only to control legislation but the administration of the law of the country. The Home Office deliberately protect themselves under war-time legislation and they answer the Members of the House of Commons by saying they are powerless. They have so involved themselves that this is put into the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Though sitting upon these Benches, if the Home Secretary will not agree to my very reasonable Amendment to take this particular Act from the Schedule I shall be compelled to divide the Committee.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: At this very late hour of the night I do not think the House will expect me to make a very long reply. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is a very important matter."] I agree. My hon. Friend has made a very clear case from his point of view and a very able case, but I do not think that he realises that the Shops Act, 1920, which, as he points out, was practically the provisions under D.O.R.A., was continued in response to a very large demand on behalf of the shopkeepers. Under that Act, although hours were fixed, as the hon. Member pointed out, very large exceptions were made with which I will not weary the Committee.

Mr. PETO: They are all in the 1912 Act.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will come to that. Then we have the Shops Act, 1921. The hours were considerably extended under the 1921 Act and further large concessions were made. May I point out that if this Act were allowed to lapse, as my hon. Friend wants, the only provisions for the closing of shops would be under the Act of 1912. Under this Act the only general provision is a provision for one half-holiday in the week. On all other weekdays they would be able to remain open to any hour they liked, unless a local closing order was made for particular trades or classes of shops. In order to get such local closing orders made, it was first of all necessary for the shopkeepers to secure two-thirds majority of the shops affected, and secondly to get the order made by the local authority. Experience showed, as a matter of fact, that the 1912 Act was only partially effective. It was always a great difficulty to get the necessary two-thirds majority, because of the desire of the small shopkeepers to keep open when the larger shops were closed. So much for that.
A Select Committee met in 1922 and went into the question of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and they recommended definitely and unanimously, I believe, that this particular Act should be left in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act pending legislation. I agree that very likely legislation is required; that it is necessary to look into the whole question and possibly bring in certain amending provisions, but in view of the recommendations of the Select Com-
mittee, which sat only last year, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press for the omission of this.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: There is one further point I want to put to the Committee and that is one of economy. Local experience proves that the putting into force of the 1912 Act was, even if the orders were carried out under careful management, that they were expensive and a considerable cost on the local ratepayers. Each particular trade in each particular town had to have a separate order made. Surely at this time, when rates are high, hon. Members opposite should respond to anything that will make for economy. There is no doubt that if you have to fall back upon what the Under Secretary has said—on the ineffective provisions of the 1912 Act—you are not only going to have ineffective closing, but you are going to have much more expensive closing so far as local authorities are concerned. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke largely of the inconvenience to the public; but surely the inconvenience to the shop assistant is the main point which should weigh with the Committee. It has been referred to as being a War Measure. That is true, but one of the very few gains that we get from the experience of the war is that we can do our shopping during more reasonable hours. The shorter hours of service which were compelled by the war, many of us hope have come to stay, so that the shop assistant may not go back to the bad, wearisome, long hours which served no purpose to anybody and did harm to themselves.

Mr. BECKER: I understand the Under-Secretary to say that these D.O.R.A. Regulations were continued at the almost unanimous request of the shopkeepers and the assistants. Perhaps some of that large opinion may be represented by the Early Closing Association. The Early Closing Association did me the honour the other day when I introduced a Bill to amend the 1921 Amendment Act of circulating all the members to say that out of a vast number of tobacconists who had been consulted in regard to the desirability of keeping open after eight o'clock something like 3,000 were against it, and very few were for remaining open after eight o'clock.
I can quite understand how that comes about. I am just speaking of tobacconists
at the moment. The large tobacconists in the big towns would naturally like to feel that all the other tobacconists are going to shut at eight o'clock. Take London for instance. Millions of people come into London every day to do their work, and go home to the outskirts, the suburbs and outlying districts, and if they have not bought their tobacco in the city they were usually too late to buy it in the suburbs and a man gets accustomed to buy his tobacco in Town. He goes home to his tea, has a wash, goes out for a walk with his wife and it is a quarter past eight and he cannot get a smoke. The man gets his tobacco in the City and the consequence is that the small retail shop in the suburbs does not get a fair proportion of trade. I have a letter here from a man who has a tobacco shop next to a theatre. There are two houses at this theatre and the second house begins at twenty minutes to nine. He is not allowed to sell tobacco to any of the people who happen to come to his shop after eight o'clock and he loses the whole of that trade. But he can sell them a packet of aniseed balls or sticks of chewing gum and all kinds of sweetmeats but he cannot sell them a little bit of twist, snuff, tobacco, or cigarettes; yet he has them there on his counter. I am describing a one man business where no extra labour is required. The Association say that by trying to get the Government to extend the hours for tobacco we are trying to make everybody open to sell tobacco and to keep the shop assistants up to the abnormal hours. That is not so. Before the war tobacco was sold to almost any time, but the big stores shut at eight o'clock. They did not go on to ten o'clock.

Mr. AMMON: Salmon and Gluckstein kept open all hours.

Mr. BECKER: That is so. But the small tobacconists did not take away from the big firms, and they need not be frightened at the ex-service man, who has put his capital into the business.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You do not care for the ex-service man. Are you an ex-service man?

Mr. BECKER: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With whom did you serve?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) is in possession of the Committee.

Mr. BECKER: The same thing applies to the publican. In public houses or licensed premises you cannot get tobacco after eight o'clock, but if you buy a little bit of food, it may be sardines on toast, you can get a cigarette as part of a meal. I do not wish to stress the fact that you can buy alcohol up to ten o'clock and cigarettes only up to eight. There is the reply that you should not buy alcohol so late. It does seem a gross interference, nevertheless, with the personal convenience of hundreds of thousands in this country every day that they are not able to buy tobacco after eight o'clock. If for instance you go to a theatre and have forgotten cigarettes you try to buy them in the interval. There is a bar with people serving drinks, and chocolate, and there are cigarettes on the glass shelf—but you cannot buy them. After all, it is ridiculous. There they are looking you in the face. It leads to breaking of the law. You get them somehow, or try to do so. It brings the law into a certain amount of contempt.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You see your law givers!

Mr. BECKER: I want to impress upon the Committee that we only want to sell tobacco up to 9.30. We do not desire to attack the whole principle of early closing. Why are the newspaper shops kept open, and shops that sell lollipops, when you cannot cater for the vast number of people—even ladies smoke in large numbers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That shows the company you keep.

Mr. BECKER: You are for sticking to this on behalf of a very minute fraction of the population. You are legislating to preserve them against discomfort to the irritation of the vast majority of the people of this country. I ask the Home Secretary seriously to consider the question and allow, as soon as possible, a measure to go through whereby people will get tobacco at a reasonable and respectable hour, and not hamper us much longer with grandmotherly miss D.O.R.A. who would see us to bed and look after us all.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: She did immeasurably good things.

Mr. BECKER: Yes, but we are considered the land of the free. Let us buy tobacco as free men, and men who have the greatest Empire as a heritage.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member who has just spoken has not advanced his case by his speech. I have never heard such feeble arguments. It is preposterous that men should argue in favour of the abolition of the law because they cannot buy a packet of Woodbines after eight o'clock at night. Such arguments pass my comprehension. I never understood that a suggestion of that kind could carry any proposal. I resist this Amendment because I have had some experience of shop life. I worked in a shop myself for five years. Let hon. Members recall what happened in shop life 10, 15 and 20 years ago. One shopkeeper would keep open till eleven o'clock on Saturday night and another would keep open till one o'clock on Sunday morning, by way of competing for trade. It was only when the law came down on that foolish practice that we got equity between one shopkeeper and another.

Mr. BECKER: What I am asking is to sell tobacco up to 9.30.

Mr. DAVIES: Once you open the shops late for the sale of one article you must open them for others, too. This question of early closing affects at least 1,000,000 people. I remember analysing the statistics of the health of these people employed in shops. About one-half of them are women and out of that half approximately 60 per cent. will be young girls under twenty years of age. The figures for consumption among shopkeepers and clerks, when the shops were open till eleven and twelve o'clock at night, were the highest on record of any section of workpeople in this country. It can be proved that there has been a diminution of tuberculosis among shop assistants in proportion to the reduction in the hours that shops are open. After all there is only so much trade to handle in London, Manchester, Liverpool, and each town and village; the question of foreign competition cannot be raised in this connection. I do not think that the hon. Members who have supported this Amendment represent even the shopkeepers. My hon. Friend has twitted the Early
Closing Association as being unrepresentative. There were at any rate hon. names associated with that Association, such as Sir Charles Dilke, I believe, and many statesmen of all parties in this country have pleaded very strongly for the earlier closing of shops. The Home Office knows that about 150,000 organised shopworkers will have a say on this subject, and I plead with the Committee that, instead of taking a reactionary step, it will recognise that the time has arrived when the State ought to declare that, if people can do their purchasing between nine and six o'clock in the daytime, there is no earthly reason for keeping shops open till seven, eight or eleven o'clock at night, and that legal sanction to this new conception of shopping must continue.
My hon. Friends opposite are against Regulations. Modern civilisation demands Regulations to prevent evildoing. You regulate industrial questions in connection with mines, factories and railways, and we are regulated in many ways in this House, too. I wish we were regulated a little more, so that we could go home at eleven o'clock instead of two or three o'clock in the morning. I feel sure that the case put forward for the abolition of early closing is ill-informed. Hon. Members opposite know very little about shop life; they have never worked in a shop, and this House will correctly reflect the views both of shopkeepers and shop workers if it rejects this Amendment unanimously.

Mr. PETO: In view of what the Under Secretary has said, I should like, if the Committee give me leave, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (20).
I really move to leave out the provision in this Bill in connection with the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921, in order to ask for an explanation from the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Health as to what financial provisions are going to be made in order to be able to continue this Act for another year. The Committee will remember that this Act was introduced with the object of keeping people within insurance who would otherwise fall out owing to
unemployment. I do not think any section of the Committee will dissent from that particular provision. It was part of the financial provision then made that there should be no charge upon the State in that particular connection, but that the cost of the increased benefit and retention in insurance of people who would otherwise fall out through unemployment was to be derived from certain insurance funds. That particular provision was strictly limited to twelve months, and I have been requested by several of the approved societies to ask what is the intention of the Minister so far as the financial provisions are concerned for the next twelve months. Does he propose to meet the increased cost from State Funds; how does he propose to deal with it; will it necessitate legislation and will the societies themselves have an opportunity of considering the matter? As my hon. Friend is aware, a very large number of the societies are anxious as to their position, especially the smaller societies.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: What about the Prudential and the Pearl?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eutace Percy): The assurance which my hon. Friend asks is one which I can give at once. He asks, in the first place, whether the approved societies will be consulted. The approved societies have already been consulted. The proposal has been laid before the Consultative Council, and they have agreed to the prolongation of this Measure in consideration of a pledge that a similar Measure shall be taken, as we took last year, to give the approved societies financial assistance. We propose to introduce legislation on the same lines as Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1922, giving assistance to the approved societies.

Sir K. WOOD: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain BERKELEY: I beg to move in paragraph 22, column 3, to leave out the words
so far as it relates to tramway undertakings.
My purpose in moving the Amendment is not to argue the merits of the Act
referred to in the Schedule, but in order to point out to the Committee one or two considerations with regard to its prolongation in respect of tramways, with a view to the possible modification by the Government of their policy in the matter. The Act in question is one which makes provision for the Government, where the financial situation of any undertaking to which the Act applies has been adversely affected by circumstances arising out of the present War, to make an Order providing for the modification of statutory provisions relating to charges to be made by the persons concerned in the undertaking. There are two Sub-sections to the Section, the first of which provides that where the undertaking is owned by a local authority it is entitled to increase its statutory minimum charge by not more than 50 per cent. of the existing charges, and the second of which authorises modifications sufficient to enable, with due care, an increase of the dividend on the ordinary stocks and shares of the undertaking by three-quarters of the standard or maximum rate of dividend prescribed, or three-quarters of the pre-War rate of dividend, whichever is least. The purpose of the Schedule is to continue this Act with regard to the tramways, but to abrogate it with regard to the other statutory undertakings referred to. I would like to ask what circumstances arising out of the late War apply to tramways which do not apply to other statutory undertakings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The answer is the simple one: that the other statutory undertakings have already got the increase under other Acts, and we are dealing with the tramways in this Bill.

Captain BERKELEY: Surely that is a strange answer.

Colonel ASHLEY: You asked the question and that is the answer.

1.0 A.M.

Captain BERKELEY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to explain why I think that is a strange answer. The Act is abrogated in so far as other undertakings are concerned, so it seems to be rather strange that it should be continued in regard to this one only. The circumstance which justified
this Act being placed on the Statute Book—the adverse circumstances arising out of the War—have been very considerably mitigated. Costs, for instance, when the Act was passed were considerably higher than now, and wages have now been reduced. Therefore it stands to reason that the tramways can be operated at a less cost now than they could at the time when this Act was passed. Surely that must be plain. The wages of the tramway operatives have been reduced and the cost of living also has come down considerably. Another consideration is this, that the wages of the people who travel in the trams have been reduced; therefore they cannot afford to pay fares at the rate which it was perhaps legitimate to ask them to pay in 1918. I do not suggest that the Ministry of Transport should compel corporations to run their tramways at a loss, but I do suggest that the figure of 50 per cent., which was an adequate figure in 1918, must surely be too high a figure to be maintained now. I suggest that they ought to revise the maximum percentage of increase in the case of municipal authorities.
I do not know how far paragraph (b) applies to tramways, but if it does apply to tramways—that is, if there are tramways run by private companies to which this paragraph (b) would apply—surely it is most unfair that you should guarantee dividends in these particular undertakings when other trading concerns all over the country are making no profits at all or are even going bankrupt. Under paragraph (b) you authorise the trading corporation in question to increase its charges to such an extent as to assure it a dividend either of three-quarters of the maximum dividend prescribed for the undertaking or three-quarters of the pre-War dividend, whichever is lower. There are a good many undertakings in the country which would only be too glad to be assured of three-quarters of their pre-War dividend. I suggest to the Committee that if it be necessary that some kind of permissive legislation should be enacted in order that the tramways may make both ends meet and not be faced with a deficit, the Government should, in the first case, reduce or modify the percentage and, in the second case, modify the scale.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment made two points. The first was why should we make this concession to the tramways and not to other undertakings of a similar character, and the second was that as the cost of wages, etc., had gone down why should these extra charges be continued? As to the first point, the other allied undertakings, such as gas, water, and electricity, have already been provided for. Gas is already provided for by power given to the President of the Board of Trade to increase charges if he thinks fit, after certain procedure and inquiries. Water is provided for by the Ministry of Health. Electricity is now regulated by the Electricity Commissioners set up in 1920. So that there only remain the tramway undertakings to be dealt with at the present moment by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
As to the other point, the hon. Member considers that the time has now come when these extra charges or, at any rate, a large portion of them, should be disallowed. I admit that the cost has been somewhat reduced to these undertakings, but still I think it is a matter of general knowledge that the working of a tramway as compared with what it was before the War is considerably enhanced, and there must be some means by which a tramway undertaking, whether municipal or private, should be allowed to make both ends meet. What we propose to do in this Bill is as follows: At the present time increases can be given by the Ministry of Transport up to 31st March, 1924, and what we propose to do by this is not to continue it for another year but to the end of the year to 31st December, 1924, that is to say, for another nine months. It is quite obvious a decision will have to be arrived at as to whether these undertakings will have to promote private Bills and get or not get legislative authority to increase their charges, or whether a Bill will have to be introduced to give the Ministry of Transport some power to grant increased charges if it should be necessary.
As far as this year is concerned, I would like to point out that 59 Orders have been made, dealing with charges over and above the figure of 1914, and of these 59, 34 were for municipal corporations, so that they are in the majority. Of these 59,
43 continued the charges as they were last year, one showed a slight increase, and the balance are reduced charges compared with those in operation last year. I think, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member's fears may be allayed. There is no secrecy about it. If an undertaking wishes to increase its charges it has first of all to publish locally that they are making application to the Minister so that everybody has an opportunity of making application to the Minister. The Minister has to refer the application to a Statutory Committee set up by another Act of 1920, to advise him as to whether any increase is advisable, and the Statutory Committee has the duty of inquiring as to what objection there is against it. The Committee may be quite satisfied that only the necessary and minimum charges are allowed in this Bill.

Captain BERKELEY: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with my other question, namely, with regard to those tramway undertakings which are not municipally owned, in which the dividend is authorised on the basis of three-quarters of the pre-War dividend?

Colonel ASHLEY: Each case is discussed on its merits and a decision come to, after having investigated the expenses of the company. The decision is arrived at on the basis of what their expenses are.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): The next Amendment on the Paper, to leave out Part III of the Schedule, is not in order, and I do not select the last Amendment on the Paper to leave out paragraph (24).

Mr. T. THOMSON: Do I understand you, Sir, to say that you declare the last Amendment out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not selected it.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is not this Bill in a special category? It is a Bill which continues each item of the Schedule and makes it a complete piece of legislation by this Bill. Would not that affect your ruling?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I came to the conclusion that it does not.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we not to take Part III of the Schedule with regard to the Overseas Trade Act, 1920? Do you not propose to put that to the Committee at all?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is out of order. The Committee has already decided, in passing Clause 1, that Part III should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is to become of all the speeches that have been prepared?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I think it would be helpful to have some reasons for not accepting the Amendment from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not obliged to give reasons for not accepting the Amendment.

Captain BENN: This is a whole Act of Parliament which Parliament decided should be continued for a whole year, and this Amendment only maintains the previous decision of Parliament. I submit that the Amendments to the Schedule are in a separate category and should be separately considered under the Standing Order under which you are acting.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When I select an Amendment it would be unreasonable to argue why I selected the Amendment. It is an established rule of the House that a Chairman should be able to select an Amendment without a long argument.

Captain BENN: It is a point of some substance, and in the interest of minorities in this House, Parliament passed an Act which it says should continue for one year, but it looks as if another Chairman may continue it for another year.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Has not the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion, even if it has not the right to discuss the matter? We were told on the Second Reading, by Mr. Speaker, that we were not allowed to discuss any particular item of the Schedule, and I am asking your guidance as to what opportunity the Committee has of discussing the Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: When I put the point to Mr. Speaker, he said there would be an opportunity of dealing with the matter at a later stage.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: My point with regard to Part III of the Schedule is that we were promised that we should divide on the various parts of the Schedule without any discussion at all. I submit that you must put the various parts, in order that Members of the Committee may have a chance of dividing on them.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Schedule is put as a whole, and not in parts.

Question put "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. PRINGLE: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Is there any precedent for putting the whole Schedule of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill? Is it not in accordance with the practice of the House that every Amendment should be called?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member was present during the particular point under discussion.

Mr. PRINGLE: (seated and covered): My absence does not affect the matter. I have never heard before that an hon. Member was not entitled to raise a point of Order, because he was not present. I am putting a question on a

point of Order—whether on any previous occasion such an Amendment has been rejected by the Chair?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is entirely a matter for the Chair to say whether it is in order or not.

Mr. PRINGLE: (seated and covered): A Committee of this House has reported that full opportunity should be given for discussing every part of the Bill. Although I am raising this in connection with the Amendment actually on the Paper, it also involves a question of principle. I submit that in these circumstances the taking of this Division is contrary to all precedent.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers was in exact contradiction to what the House decided the other day.

Captain BENN: (seated and covered): Do I understand that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) is ruled out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not rule it out of order. I did not select it.

Captain BENN: (seated and covered): Do you not give your reasons why the Amendment was out of order?

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 44.

Division No. 295.]
AYES.
[1.17 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Houfton, John Plowright


Banks, Mitchell
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hudson, Capt. A.


Barnston, Major Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Becker, Harry
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Ellis, R. G.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Betterton, Henry B.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Flanagan, W. H.
Lort-Williams, J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lougher, L.


Brass, Captain W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lumley, L. R.


Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Furness, G. J.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Manville, Edward


Bruford, R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, H. D. R.


Bruton, Sir James
Garland, C. S.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nall, Major Joseph


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Chapman, Sir S.
Halstead, Major D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Clayton, G. C.
Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pease, William Edwin


Cope, Major William
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peto, Basil E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Privett, F. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wallace, Captain E.


Raine, W.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Skelton, A. N.
Wise, Frederick


Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, William (Bolton)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Herriotts, J.
Sullivan, J.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Tout, W. J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Warne, G. H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
Lawson, John James
Westwood J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Whiteley, W.


Fairbairn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.



Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Mr. Pringle and Mr. Ammon.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
O'Grady, Captain James

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 46.

Division No. 296.]
AYES.
[1.27 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Flanagan, W. H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Banks, Mitchell
Furness, G. J.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pease, William Edwin


Barnston, Major Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Becker, Harry
Garland, C. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Basil E.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Privett, F. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Raine, W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Halstead, Major D.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brass, Captain W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell, William (Bolton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bruford, R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Bruton, Sir James
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Houfton, John Plowright
Shepperson, E. W.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Skelton, A. N.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Clayton, G. C.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major William
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lort-Williams, J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lougher, L.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Wallace, Captain E.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Manville, Edward
Wise, Frederick


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Margesson, H. D. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.



Ellis, R. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Nall, Major Joseph
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hardie, George D.
O'Grady, Captain James


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sullivan, J.


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Tout, W. J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Warne, G. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Westwood, J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Whiteley, W.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawson, John James



Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fairbairn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Mr. Pringle and Mr. Watts-


Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Morgan.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Newbold, J. T. W.



Fourth Resolution agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendment; to be read the Third Time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[CAPTAIN FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for public works.)

(1) There may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purpose of local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of twenty million pounds.
(2) The sums so issued shall be issued during a period ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purposes of these loans comes into operation, and in accordance with the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PRINGLE: The Clause is a very important one, because it gives power to the Local Loans Commissioners to issue, for the purposes of local loans, any sum, or sums, not exceeding in the whole £20,000,000. It further provides in Sub-section (2) that
The sums so issued shall be issued during a period ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purposes of these loans comes into operation, and in accordance with the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act of 1887.
I have not got the provisions of the original Act with me, and I am not intending to enter into the conditions there laid down, but there is a very important matter which arises in connection with these loans. That is the rate of interest. It is a question which closely affects many local authorities which receive loans under the terms of this Act, and I am told
many of them regard the rate of interest as excessive at the present moment. Under these conditions it is a matter which the Committee should take into consideration. What is the fair rate of interest, having regard to the present conditions on the money market, which, under this Bill, should be charged to the local authorities? Large numbers of these local authorities are in very serious financial difficulties, and it is obvious that, for the purposes of local loans under this Bill, every effort should be made to enable them to obtain the money they require on the easiest possible conditions. In the case of previous loans, I believe the interest charged has been at a very high rate. It has been mentioned that some local authorities are paying as much as 6 per cent. for local loans. Considering the rate at which money can now be had—although there is a tendency for the interest rate to rise—the Committee would be interested to know the terms on which loans could be issued. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give an answer, as there are a number of hon. Members keenly interested and who have had representations made to them from local authorities in their constituencies. Such a statement may have the result of shortening the debate.

Mr. J. JONES: May I be allowed to speak as representing one of the poorest districts in Great Britain, particularly so far as the Poor Law Authority is concerned, and my district is also poor in the matter of assessment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would give us some understanding in this matter. We have borrowed £750,000 since the Armistice, and we are now told that the rate of interest is 6 per cent. Cannot something be done to assist us,
for we are now asking for another £250,000—£1,000,000 has been, or has to be, borrowed by one of the poorest districts in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite may not appreciate our position, but we happen to live in a dockside district. We happen to have a great amount of casual labour. We have a large number of middle-class people living in the same district, but we have no aristocracy in West Ham. We have no one who rides in a "boiled rice" car. It was the ordinary working class and middle class and we have been compelled to borrow £1,000,000 and now we are being charged this 6 per cent. interest.
The poor must keep the poor and our local authorities have done so gallantly. They have been prepared to pledge their credit to the best of their ability and now they find themselves hopelessly in debt. We are going from bad to worse. The rates in West Ham are 26s. in the £. Taxation in the West End has gone down, so far as Poor Law relief is concerned. They are selling their workhouse, they are getting rid of their infirmaries, but the poor have to keep the poor. Inside the County of London there is equalisation of rates, but outside we have no equalisation of rates. We have got to pay and to meet the responsibility. We have got to borrow £1,000,000 and pay 6 per cent. interest upon it. Surely we are entitled under this Clause of the Bill now before the Committee to have some recognition of our position. We cannot go on as we are. We are trying to save the situation, but I remind the House of the fact that to-day the Victoria and Albert Docks and the King George Dock are stopped. Why? Because of the fact that the men cannot live upon the wages that are being paid to them. They come to the board of guardians, and we have to borrow the money to keep them, and we help to subsidise the wages paid by the shipowners and the dockowners. Yet we are asked to pay 6 per cent. interest on the money we are asked to borrow. I could understand the attitude of some Members of the House who are interested in finance. I know nothing about finance except the lack of it, but I want to ask those Gentlemen why are they putting this pressure on us. The time
may come when we will stop supplies. That is what we are getting to. All we can do is to refuse to administer and you will be up against the stiffest proposition you have ever faced. Because we are poor we have to pay more. The City of London can sell its workhouse and its infirmary because they are getting rid of their poor. We have got not merely to shoulder the burdens of our own people but the burdens of the people who are shifted from other districts inside the City.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should realise that this Bill only deals in loans from the Local Loans Fund and does not extend to borrowing from other sources.

Mr. JONES: I only wanted to get in what I wanted to say. We have to borrow money to carry on. We cannot carry on unless we get money at a reasonable rate of interest. Six per cent. is being charged to us in the East End of London, and surely I am entitled to ask that the Government shall exercise some control over the amount of interest charged. Because we are poor we have to pay more. Therefore I am asking that, in continuing this old legislation, the Government will let us have a reasonable rate of interest, otherwise it is going to lead to chaos.

Mr. WISE: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if there is any redemption in this Public Loan Bill. I have always understood that these were permanent loans. There seems to be no chance of getting rid of the 6 per cent. interest if the loan is permanent. The last issue, I understand, was £100 stock at 50, carrying 3 per cent. interest, which is a yield of 6 per cent. When money gets cheaper, if you are unable to pay off these loans, it appears that 6 per cent. would be charged all through. Would it not be advisable to have these loans with redemption, so that the heavy interest could be paid off. If that is not possible might it not be better in the future to have redemption attached to such loans as the Local Loan Fund.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): On the Second Reading of the Bill I made a rather long speech on the matter which I want to make quite clear. Hon. Members will realise that the price of
money varies just as the price of boots or clothes. I do not know the details of the loan to which the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was referring, but if it was a loan raised a few years ago just after the War—

Mr. JONES: Raised now.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member spoke of two loans, one of £750,000 and one of £250,000.

Mr. JONES: We are negotiating now.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I gravely doubt if the £750,000 loan came from the Local Loans Commissioners, because they provide only for the smaller authorities. Manchester, Liverpool and West Ham get loans in the public market.

Mr. JONES: We are raising our loan through the Ministry of Health.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think the Ministry of Health has power to lend money.

Mr. JONES: They sanction it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, the Ministry has to sanction the loan, then the local authority has to go into the market and get its loan on the best terms it can.

Mr. JONES: Six per cent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It may be, I do not know, but none of the money has been loaned under the provisions of this Bill, or from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. This Bill only provides facilities for the smaller local authorities who cannot go into the market and borrow money on good terms, but the rate of interest is gradually coming down.

Mr. JONES: It is going up.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. JONES: We got the first at 5 per cent., and now it is 6 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): It is quite evident that the loans to West Ham are not in order on this Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I tried to explain to the hon. Member that these loans do not come under the provisions of this Bill. The interest on loans during the last few years has gone down. In 1920 it was as high as 6½ per cent. That
gradually came down to 5½ per cent. in 1922, and in October of that year to 5 per cent. The interest charged this year is as low as 4¾ per cent. I think that perfectly answers the question of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). If it were possible, we would be glad to lend the money for less. Our sole duty is to lend the money to the smaller local authorities at the very lowest rate we can, without involving a charge on the taxpayer. We have to borrow the money ourselves, add a small charge for administration, and then lend it at the lowest possible rate.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I put a point the Financial Secretary has not answered quite clearly. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) represents an area where they have had to borrow an extensive sum to deal with abnormal expenditure incurred by the local authority to relieve unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that while places like West Ham and Sheffield have been able to go and borrow money in the open market they have also had to have recourse to loans from public sources and that loans have been sanctioned by the Ministry of Health.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order. This Bill refers to loans issued by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the Ministry of Health has nothing to do with it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: As a matter of fact some of these loans have been used for a dual purpose both for public works and for Poor Law purposes for the relief of unemployment, and some of the money used locally for the relief of unemployment through the Poor Law or town council or jointly has been borrowed from the Public Loans Commissioners.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We only lend to the smaller local authorities.

Mr. J. JONES: We are at the mercy of the bankers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioners only lend to the smaller authorities and not to the larger ones.

Mr. JONES: There we are then!

Mr. McENTEE: What does the right hon. Gentleman describe as the "smaller local authorities"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it means those with a rateable value of under two hundred thousand pounds.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Financial Secretary has not quite grasped the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise). We quite understand these loans are small sums borrowed by small local authorities, the money for which is raised by the Government in large sums in order to enable these authorities to borrow at the smallest rate possible. What the hon. Member for Ilford said was that there was no sinking fund or power of redemption. Quite recently, on account of the tightness of money, it has been necessary to issue local loans of £100 worth of stock at £50, with 3 per cent. interest, equal to 6 per cent. There is no right of redemption in the hands of the Government to enable the Government at any certain date to pay that stock back unless it goes on the market and pays £100 for the £50. Why does not the Treasury add to its terms when it borrows money from the country for these local loans a date of redemption, saying it can pay the money back at a certain date and not allow these loans to remain as Consols are, to all intents and purposes, a perpetual annuity? The thing to do is to allow the Government to pay back after a long period, at par of course, and to have a small sinking fund paid by the borrowers, the small authorities, so that the loans would be paid off gradually and would therefore cost the Government and the smaller authorities a lower rate of interest.

Mr. SHORT: The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said that this Bill only applies to smaller authorities. I would like him to give us a list of the local authorities to which loans had been given under the Bill, and also to explain clearly and precisely the line of demarcation that distinguishes the larger local authorities from smaller local authorities, because it has appeared to me, judging from his own statement, that smaller local authorities are badly handicapped. For instance, he says that the Loans Commissioners have to borrow the money, pay interest on the borrowed money and then they lend it to smaller local authorities at something in the neighbourhood of 4¾ per cent. It seems to me that this is a very roundabout
way of doing business, and reflects a great deal upon the intelligence or method or policy of the Treasury. We are entitled to ask if some more precise statement on this very important issue could be made. In my judgment these smaller local authorities are being compelled to pay a larger amount of interest than they would have to pay if we initiated a better system than that which is incorporated in the Bill. This has an important bearing upon all questions with which local authorities have to deal, particularly housing. They have to erect houses for the working classes. They have to borrow money, and if they have to borrow money at 4¾ per cent. when it is quite possible to obtain money at 3 or 3½ per cent.—

Mr. SAMUEL: You cannot get it.

Mr. SHORT: I said "if."

Mr. SAMUEL: I happen to have had some experience of these municipal matters. If the smaller municipal authorities can get the money locally at a less price than the price quoted by the Treasury, they have every right to do it. But they cannot get it, and the Treasury, by this roundabout way, is enabled to lend them the money cheaper.

2.0 A.M.

Mr. SHORT: My hon. Friend is not in the Treasury or the Government, and we know very well it does not work out in the way he suggests. I was very careful to make the reservation, to qualify my statement. If these smaller local authorities can borrow money at 3 or 3½ per cent., I say their interests are being prejudiced by having to pay something in the neighbourhood of 4 or 4¾ per cent. This borrowing of money at this high rate of interest certainly handicaps these smaller local authorities in dealing with great domestic problems, such as building houses for the working classes. I am not satisfied with the explanation that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. I turn for a few moments from the considerations I have put before the Committee to ask a few questions about the Eyemouth Trustees.

The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is whether Clause I should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. SHORT: I accept your ruling, Sir, and will conclude my remarks.

Captain BERKELEY: I am bound to say that while I have every sympathy with the case put by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short), I cannot quite agree with him as to the hardship these particular provisions inflict upon the smaller local authorities. My sympathies are with the larger local authorities, who stand in need of far greater sums of money than the smaller local authorities. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the larger local authorities should not be allowed the same privileges in obtaining cheap money as the smaller local authorities. It is in the interest of public policy that cheap money should be readily obtainable by these local authorities. I suppose at this time of night we are all more or less frivolous, but this is more or less a serious question. We are debating a Bill which authorises the Treasury to make loans for 20 millions of money. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether it is not possible, within the four corners of this Bill, to make money available to the larger local authorities?

Mr. SAMUEL: They can get it themselves.

Captain BERKELEY: They cannot.

Mr. SAMUEL: They do.

Captain BERKELEY: If I may answer the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me, his case is completely demolished by the statement of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who has told the Committee that his corporation, a large local authority, has to pay 6 per cent. for the money.

The CHAIRMAN: The money in this Bill is for the purpose of certain local loans, and I take it that this Local Loans Fund is governed by previous legislation, which does not allow money to be paid to the larger local authorities. If that be so, the hon. Member is out of order.

Captain BERKELEY: I have no wish to dispute your ruling in this matter. I was merely led away by the interruption from the other side of the Committee. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary if it is within his powers to extend these privileges to the larger local authorities? I hope he will be able to consider the point I have put forward.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I wish to refer particularly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). I think he struck the essential point of the discussion, but I also think his facts are wrong and I can prove it. I have been a member of a local authority, I have served for a long period of time on principal bodies, and I have been convener of a finance committee. The hon. Member for Farnham said that if the local authorities could get cheap money, they ought to be allowed to do so, but the party of which he is a member has for years prevented local authorities getting facilities for cheap money that they could get locally.

Mr. SAMUEL: What population?

Mr. JOHNSTON: A population of 12,000. I can give populations of 20,000 to 25,000, if desired. The hon. Member for Farnham knows perfectly well that the Post Office Savings Bank money gets 2½ per cent., that that money goes to the Treasury, that there is a quarter per cent. allowed for management, and that the depositors get 2½ per cent. The Government gets that money and it lends it back to these same people or their municipal authorities for house building at 6 per cent.

Mr. SAMUEL: If these local authorities all came on the market and tried to get money, they would be competing against themselves and put up the price. When the money is lent by the public to the Post Office, the public has a right to get the money back on the nail, but when local authorities borrow money from the Treasury they have the valuable concession that they are not called upon to pay back the money except at their convenience at some later date.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Small depositors at the Savings Bank have the right to withdraw the money any day of the week, but their money grows steadily week by week, month by month and year by year, and there is no point in the hon. Member's argument at all. We have fought against this trouble for years and endeavoured to keep our money locally in our own hands to finance our local enterprises with cheap money, and we found we had no statutory powers. But that was only the beginning of it. We then formed our Town Council into a limited liability company, a Municipal
Bank, Limited, and we asked our citizens to deposit their money with us. We gave them a half per cent. more than the Post Office. We invested their money in their own enterprises, gasworks, waterworks, and so on. It has run for 3½ years, and last year we financed our enterprises at less than 3 per cent.

Mr. SAMUEL: Suppose you were called upon?

Mr. JOHNSTON: We have got all that arranged for. But when the Bill that has been introduced into the House comes on for Second Reading we shall be able to discuss all the technical details. The point with which I am concerned now is that the local authorities, if you will allow them, could get cheap money instead of financing housing schemes at 5 and 6 per cent. They could be financing housing schemes at less than 3 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is being done, and I can give an instance where it has been done. I have a balance sheet which shows that only £2 19s. per cent. was paid for the money.

Mr. WISE: That is not finance, Mr. Johnston. You can call it what you like

Mr. J. JONES: It is honesty.

Mr. JOHNSTON: All I am concerned about for the moment is this—the point made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) that local authorities ought to be allowed to get their money on the cheapest possible terms. If the hon. Member was really interested in lowering municipal taxation, in allowing municipal authorities to finance their enterprises on the cheapest possible basis, he would do everything he possibly could—

Mr. SAMUEL: I agree.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Member agrees, I am thankful to have a convert, and I hope he will join us in breaking down these barriers. I remember reading, before I was a Member of this House, that Mr. McKenna—he was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time—when there was a Bill brought in to give municipal authorities in this country power to establish municipal savings banks, was prevented from passing it by the financial interests in this House. Even during the War I remember perfectly well the City of Birmingham—I
think the Minister of Health was Lord Mayor—came to this House for permission to run a municipal bank. All it got was really power to deal in War Savings Certificates, and under the most stupid restrictions that made it impossible to carry on and made their effort impossible. They came back again later and got somewhat wider powers, but they are not what they ought to be.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I rise to a point of Order? I submit that it is not in order to discuss the whole method of composition of municipal banks and any particular Acts of Parliament passed in this House with regard to Birmingham. It is quite outside the scope of the Bill now before the House and the rate of interest at which the Local Loan Commissioners are to lend money.

The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to go at length into the powers and procedure of municipalities like Birmingham which is outside the scope of this Bill. I take it that the hon. Gentleman was only using Birmingham as an illustration. I trust the illustration will not become an argument in itself.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I had no intention of making it an argument in itself. I do not want to pursue the subject further except to say that a distinguished colleague of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the present Minister of Health, in opening an additional branch of a municipal bank in Birmingham the other day, declared publicly that the bank had been so successful, it had meant so much to thrift in Birmingham, it had meant cheap money to Birmingham, it had put the city on a different financial basis altogether, that people now owned their houses who never would have owned them, and that he was pleased to be there to open a new branch of the bank. He said:
It may be called Socialism, but I am not afraid of the name if it is a good thing. If it is Socialism and a good thing, then I welcome it and I will support it.
That is all we are asking for on this side of the House. Do not take your ideas of finance from the high priests of the London money markets, who stand to make a tremendous gain out of the continuance of the system. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows better than I do how the interest upon the National Debt has affected every
social reform in the country. As I understand it, in this Bill you are proposing to find a sum of £20,000,000 to lend to the smaller local authorities at an excessively high rate of interest, 4¾. You can get money cheaper than that. I say quite sincerely that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will deserve well of his country, he will make a tremendous reform in the financial system of this country, and he will save millions to the people of the country, if he will face the whole question of financing local authorities from a different point of view, and not from the point of view of the Bank of England and the financiers. I know he is pretty well tied up to them. I know he has to get from the Prudential Assurance Co. and other big institutions like that tremendous sums of money sometimes on short terms loans. But sooner or later they will have to face it; you simply cannot continue monkeying with this system much longer. £100 borrowed at 5 per cent. doubles itself in a little over 14 years. The tremendous amount a interest will paralyse you and prevent you dealing with housing and slums and prevent any social development in the country at all. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, quite apart from the mere terms of the proposals he is putting before the House now, is not playing a statesman-like part—I do not use that in any offensive sense—by accepting the old method, by sticking in the old rut, by refusing to face the fact of the people who suck up the interest upon public loans of the country, which was preventing all social development. I submit that this House is not doing its duty if it gives the Financial Secretary a ready assent to the proposals which are in this Bill.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I hope the Financial Secretary will answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). Experience in the past of these perpetual loans has shown that they act very hardly upon the smaller local authorities, and also upon housing societies who have to come to the Commissioners for money. It does seem extraordinary that our financial authorities should go into the market to borrow money at £50 for £100 3 per cent. stock. It does seem somewhat curious finance, and I
would ask the Financial Secretary if any of this money is to be raised on the basis of perpetual loans without a break period? To have borrowed during the War at the rate of 6 per cent. without a break does seem to be penalising, not only the Government but the local authorities to whom, and to the utility societies, the Public Works Loan Commissioners have lent money, and who, but for the special concession, would have been very heavily mulcted in interest charges. I would ask whether in the future this money will be borrowed on the same basis without a break period and as perpetual loans? It is all right at 2½ per cent. to borrow on the basis of perpetual loans, but when it is 6 per cent., for a country which ought to borrow on more favourable terms, it puts the Treasury and the local authorities in a very adverse position. Before we give this sanction for further borrowing, the Committee is entitled to some assurance from the Financial Secretary that the policy which has undoubtedly worked very hardly upon those who have borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners should not be continued. It does seem the height of folly that it should have ever been sanctioned on a basis of 6 per cent. without any break period. If we are going on the old lines it will cripple the small local authorities with a rateable value under £200,000, and who are paying excessively high rates. The Government are making a profit out of the local authorities.

Mr. EDE: I want to put a point regarding these small local authorities. In August, 1919, I was staying in Farnham, when I was telegraphed for to attend a meeting of the urban district council upon which I had a seat and which was to deal with an offer from the Public Loans Board. They offered a loan at the rate of 6 per cent., and in the deed of mortgage we had to give an undertaking that if at any time the rate of interest in the country went up, we should agree to the rate of interest we were charged going up. That was the general form in which such loans were made at that time. Five or six months afterwards the interest on our loan was increased from 6 per cent. to 6½ per cent. That was for 60 years. Since that time the rate of interest on loans has been falling and I want to
know whether in cases where loans are granted under these conditions the contrary process will now operate?
It would be obviously unfair to allow the charging of these small local authorities with the "peak" rate of interest. In the particular county to which the hon. Member for Farnham and myself belong, the small authorities were worse off for having to go to the Loan Commissioners than the large authorities for which the county council raised a loan. Sir E. Coates, once Member for Lewisham, managed to secure for them, by his great business acumen, a loan from the Alliance Company at 5¼ per cent. They got their money through his good offices while the smaller local authorities, representing a large part of the population of Surrey, had to take money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the irksome conditions I have narrated. I hope the Financial Secretary will see that, as the price of money goes down, these small authorities will get the advantage, as they had to shoulder the disadvantage when the rate went up. Localities should be encouraged to get money from the people resident within their own borders, for there is a considerable sum of money obtainable from residents in localities who are prepared to lend money on things that they can see. I know Epsom Urban Council, before I was a member of it, did an illegal thing and issued water works debentures at 2¾ per cent. The amount they wanted was subscribed locally—people who had done well in one race on the Downs put their money into the water works. I think that this is the last year on which there will be a draw of these debentures. The citizens were interested in the thing, and I am sure the money would not have been obtained as cheaply in the market, and it is quite possible that the people who obtained the money in ways which do not commend themselves to everybody, might have reinvested it in the same form and might have lost it instead of still having it now. I do hope that on both those points the Financial Secretary will be able to meet the smaller local authorities who have to negotiate in the money market under very difficult conditions.

Mr. McENTEE: I happen to live in the same area as the hon. Member for Silver-
town (Mr. J. Jones), and like others living there I am affected as he is. I know that the Poor Law guardians are not able to borrow under the authority of this Bill, and I asked a question as to what local authorities would be able to borrow. Why should there be any limit? If there is an advantage to a small local authority why should you compel a larger local authority, frequently an exceedingly poor authority, to go into the open market to borrow money at 6 per cent., or even more, while a smaller local authority is able to get its money at a much cheaper rate under the terms of this Bill? I have not yet heard any answer to the question of why money put into the Post Office Savings Bank should not be taken by the Treasury and used to lend to local authorities. I have heard it said by people who claim to be financiers that the trouble is that people who put money into the Post Office Savings Bank may go back next week and demand part of it again. I am not a financier, but I have sufficient common sense to know that the money in the Post Office Savings Bank on any Friday is not less than it was on the previous Friday. The intention behind all this seems to me to be to cover up the whole system of money lending in this country and to conceal the real facts. I believe that the State, through its financial system, is deliberately, through this Bill and other financial Bills, aiding and abetting moneylenders to fasten their tentacles more closely round the people of this country. Unless you have some reason why should you prevent local authorities establishing their own banks and using the money put into friendly societies? The friendly societies are perfectly willing, Everybody knows that the friendly societies and those who put their money into the Post Office Savings Bank and other thrift societies would infinitely prefer to see their money loaned to the municipality in which they live than handed over to the care of the Treasury. They know that the money is simply being loaned back to them at a higher rate of interest. The financiers, through Acts of Parliament, are preventing local authorities getting cheap money. The law compels municipalities to get their money in a certain way. You must go to the Ministry of Health for power to borrow, and the Ministry will only give you power on condition that you go into the market or
borrow in the way that they permit you, so that the people who live on interest can continue to live on interest and do no work. You can live without doing work because you can make laws which compel municipalities to borrow from you at a rate of interest which you, by rigging the market, compel them to pay. Why should you say to one municipality, You cannot borrow money from this source, you must pay a higher rate of interest by borrowing from another source? It is all in the interests of the financial ring generally.
I would like to remind the Committee that there is a place called Guernsey, where they got over this question of interest altogether. It is long ago, it is true, but the principle could be put into operation again if it was not for the strength of the financial interests which are behind this Government and other Governments. They did not borrow money at all. They issued their own money and built their market. There is no financier in this House who can show any valid reason why we should not build our own houses in England on exactly the same principle that the people of Guernsey built their market. They paid no interest. They simply accepted bonds issued by the Government and circulated in the same way as Treasury notes and paid them off in time by the payment of rent and ultimately burned the bonds. I would like some of you gentlemen who are financiers to show me any valid reason why that should not be done in this country to-day by any local authority and why it should not be done nationally. These Acts of Parliament were put there by financiers in the interests of financiers to enable some people in the community to live on the backs of others and not do any work for it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked questions about the larger municipalities. All these questions I dealt with on the Second Reading, but I shall deal with them again. The reason is that the larger municipalities can borrow cheaper than the small ones. Take a place like Manchester or Liverpool, where there is a large amount of local patriotism and a larger amount of local money. If they want to issue a loan they issue it in their own locality, and get it at once
from their own citizens. There has been no request from the larger municipalities to join in this scheme at all. They have not needed it. If there is any larger local authority that cannot borrow at less than 6 per cent., then I am afraid they will not get the money at less than 6 per cent. from the Loan Commissioners, for it means the security is bad. If Liverpool and Manchester want money they can get it at less than 6 per cent. If any other large municipality cannot get it at less than 6 per cent. the security is not good. I do not know why; perhaps they have borrowed too much. As to the savings banks, I must ask the hon. Member to read the statement I made on the Second Reading. The hon. Member asked me why this money was being lent back to them at 4¾ per cent. The Savings Bank Commissioners, who are very shrewd people, are lending the money to us at over 4 per cent. to-day.

Mr. McENTEE: Does that simply mean that one Department of the Government is making a profit out of the other?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What it means is this. The savings bank moneys are kept entirely separate because they belong to savings bank depositors. In the lump they are getting to-day over 4 per cent. Probably the hon. Member knows that many years ago savings bank moneys were put in Consols, and Consols went down and there was a loss in the capital money. It is being gradually replaced. Savings bank money at one time paid 3 per cent. and I look forward to the time when if this high value of money lasts it will pay 3 per cent. and possibly more. It will have a bad effect on the Stirling Bank if the savings bank can give 3 or 3½ per cent. As to the question put by the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Ede), I must ask him for particulars. I asked the Treasury official and he says quite frankly his recollection does not tally with that of the hon. Member. If he gives me particulars, I will answer him in the House at Question Time or elsewhere. As to the perpetual loan, that is long before my time. At this time it does not seem a very profitable transaction. Public Loans are not being issued to-day at £50, but they have gone up to £65. That does not mean 6 per cent. or anything like it. Some few years ago these loans were issued at £100.

Mr. J. JONES: I want to press the case of those local authorities who are by force of circumstances placed in a peculiar position of difficulty. In our own district we have over a million population, and because it is a district mainly inhabited by casual labourers we are forced into the position of continually borrowing money. If we were a local rural village we could get money at 3 per cent., but because we are a great industrial area occupied mainly by casual labourers we have got to pay 6 per cent. That is the only rate at which the bankers will give us an overdraft. Has the Government no power? I ask hon. Members opposite who represent the banking interest whether they cannot use their influence. Are we going to be put in pawn for ever? That is what it amounts to. We have already borrowed over £1,000,000, or 24s. 10d. on the rates. Surely we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman if he cannot do something to assist us. The Bill, nothing but the Bill. That is Shylock demanding his pound of flesh. This Bill only means that the smaller local authorities can get assistance and they do not need it as much as we do. They can have their money at 3½ or 4 or 4¾, but we have to pay 6. It will take us 20 years to get out of our present debt, apart from what may happen. I read a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in which he said the next year would be as bad as last year in the matter of unemployment. We are to-day paying out in West Ham, apart altogether from the ordinary Poor Law relief, £27,000 a week in connection with unemployment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member previously that that has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry I was out of order. I never was in order. I only want to say that I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that, while small local authorities under this Bill are entitled to get money cheap, we of the bigger authorities who have the greatest responsibilities have to have the market price which is what the hon. Members opposite think we ought to pay. We have been put in pawn. A time will come when the workers will revolt against this existence. These great industrial areas are getting down to the
bottom and cannot go further, and I would like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to help us out of the financial difficulties in which we find ourselves.

Clause 2 (Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour loan.)

Whereas in pursuance of an agreement made in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two the sum of ten thousand pounds was advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees on the security of the harbour revenues with the collateral security of the Fishery Board for Scotland.
And whereas by an arrangement confirmed by Section three of the Public Works Loans Act, 1901, the liability of the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees in respect of the said loan was extinguished without prejudice to the liability of the Fishery Board for Scotland to repay the said loan, and in consequence thereof the said collateral security is the sole security for the repayment of the said loan:
And whereas the terms of the said collateral security are embodied in a memorandum of agreement between the Secretary for Scotland and the Public Works Loan Commissioners, dated the eleventh day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, whereby a portion of the surplus herring brand fees as defined in Clause three of the said memorandum was pledged in security for the repayment of the said loan with interest by the instalments and at the times mentioned in the security given by the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees for the said loan, and it was provided that the said portion of the surplus herring brand fees of any one year should only be applicable to the repayment of one-fiftieth part of principal and interest on outstanding principal falling due under the security for the said loan in the same year, and should not be applicable to the repayment of arrears of principal:
And whereas the said portion of the surplus herring brand fees so pledged as aforesaid was in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, insufficient to discharge in full the instalment of principal with interest which fell due under the security for the said loan in that year, and the principal sum of two hundred pounds with interest amounting to one hundred and thirty-one pounds seventeen shillings now remains unpaid, and under the terms of the said memorandum of agreement is irrecoverable:
Now, therefore, the said principal sum of two hundred pounds shall be extinguished,
and the said arrears of interest amounting to one hundred and thirty-one pounds seventeen shillings shall be remitted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SHORT: I should like some explanation of this Clause. The phraseology is not very clear and it is very difficult to understand what it all means. I have no doubt that the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) will, if he likes, be able to explain the Clause. On the face of it it seems a simple proposition, but notwithstanding that, it requires some five paragraphs to explain it. If I understand it aright, it relates to the remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour Loan. This loan dates back as far as 1892, 31 years ago, and it is very difficult for Members on this side of the House, and I think it must be so as far as Members of the House generally are concerned, to appreciate the significance of this loan. Thirty-one years ago is a long time. We have had no information placed before us as far as I am aware. There is no White Paper about it and it is not possible for us to go into the Vote Office and get details of this Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to say what is not correct. The White Paper was issued by myself on 13th July of this year. There are full particulars in it.

Mr. SHORT: I am grateful for the explanation, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining what it means. It is desirable we should have it from the Minister in charge at first hand. This is a loan for the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees on the security of the harbour revenues, with the collateral security of the Fishery Board for Scotland. I should like to know whether the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees is a private enterprise undertaking, whether it is run by private capital and whether, as far back as 1892, it has been dependent on a loan of the character. It is proposed to make some remission. I should like to be informed as to the exact nature of the liability and the position of the Fishery Board for Scotland in this connection. Here we have made a loan of some £10,000 to the Harbour Trustees,
and it is now to be extinguished without prejudice. What does that mean? Then we are told in paragraph 3 of this Clause that
The terms of the said collateral security are embodied in a memorandum of agreement between the Secretary for Scotland and the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
What is the nature of that agreement? Was it circulated to Members of this House? What is its nature and precise meaning; to what extent is the Fishery Board for Scotland involved; and to what extent, if any, is the liability of the Fishery Board removed? Then later on it refers to the surplus herring branding fees. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain what this surplus means. I must confess that I know little about this, but perhaps the hon. Member for Farnham will be willing to explain it. He is, I believe, something of an authority on herrings. These are questions which are germane to the Clause which we are now considering. I would like to call attention to the fourth paragraph of this Clause. It says:
And whereas the said portion of the surplus herring brand fees so pledged as aforesaid was in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1923, insufficient to discharge in full the instalment of principal with interest which fell due under the security for the said loan in that year, and the principal sum of two hundred pounds with interest amounting to one hundred and thirty-one pounds seventeen shillings now remains unpaid, and under the terms of the said memorandum of agreement is irrecoverable.
3.0 A.M.
Why is it that this sum, which we are told on the one hand, is insufficient, is now irrecoverable, and why a loan of £10,000 was granted, as I understand, in the year 1892 — 31 years ago—to the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees, which is a private undertaking. I did not know that we had given at that early stage private subsides. On what grounds and for what reasons are we asked to make this very important remission? I I have no doubt there are some good reasons, but it will be interesting to the Committee to know what these reasons are. We are entitled to a most explicit statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I know the right hon. Gentleman is not usually in favour of subsidies to private enterprises and to private
employers. It is not one of the principles of his creed, and we shall expect some very clear and concise argument to justify this remission which is now proposed. I have attempted to deal as concisely as I can with the points embodied in these five paragraphs of Clause 3, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to afford me the requisite information upon this important matter.

Clause 4 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

LOANS BY THE PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSIONERS.

LOAN UNDER THE HARBOURS AND PASSING TOLLS ACT, 1861. (24 & 25 Vlct. c. 47.)

Name of Borrower.
Amount of Loan.
Amount to be written off.


Eyemouth Harbour Trustees
£
£


10,000
200

Motion made, and Question put, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."

Mr. SHORT: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was possible to get the paper to which he referred in the Vote Office. One of my hon. Friends has made application in the Vote Office, and has had great difficulty in getting one. In these circumstances, are we not entitled to have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman on this paper?

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

[1ST MAY.]

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

"(1) That a sum, not exceeding £3,832,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."
"(2) That a sum, not exceeding £2,844,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."
"(3) That a sum, not exceeding £4,260,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."
"(4) That a sum, not exceeding £792,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."

Ordered, "That further consideration of the said Resolution be now adjourned."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the said Resolution be now adjourned."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain BENN: It is quite clear that the vote for Singapore is not being taken?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): indicated assent.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill which contains certain provisions that were embodied in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Certain provisions dealing with education in that Bill are not to be found in the present one. Those which are included are, I think, non-contentious in character, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Clauses in this Bill which were in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill are Clauses 1, 2, and 5. Clauses 3 and 4 were accepted in another place by the Secretary for Scotland.
The first Clause provides that the words that are found in the Clause should be inserted in Section 18, Sub-section (9), of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918. That Section deals with the transference to the education authorities of voluntary schools. Hon. Members from Scotland will remember that under Section 18 it was provided that after ten years, if it appeared to the education authority that the school which had been transferred was no longer required it might be closed, or if it appeared that, having regard to the religious belief of the parents of the children, it was no longer necessary for it to be carried on with the particular religious safeguards, it might be carried on as an ordinary public school. If the education authorities in these circumstances thought that a school should be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school, and they had the sanction of the Scotch Education Department, then the school could be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school. It was further enacted, however, that this could not be done until after 10 years. It was thought that, the education authority being elected only for three years, there might, when the next education authority came in, be a change of policy. It was desired to give the managers of voluntary schools security that there would be no change for 10 years. What we propose is that, if the trustees of the transferred school or their
successors are of opinion that the school should be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school, and the Department approves, the school shall be discontinued or carried on as an ordinary public school. We do not alter the safeguards laid down for this transference of schools in any way. It is only if the trustees consider there is no reason for the school being continued. It has been found in practice that certain of these schools are no longer required, as the numbers of children may have decreased, or there may have been a movement of the population. There may be no necessity for such a particular school, and if all parties desire it, before the period of 10 years it should be possible to alter matters.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it necessary that the trustees should agree?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: That is perfectly clear. Nothing can be done unless the trustees agree to this course of action. As to Clause 2, it is provided under the Education Act of 1918 that the education authorities shall have a general meeting every month, with the proviso that it shall not be necessary between the end of June and the end of October to have more than one meeting. It has been found, now that the work of the education authorities is regularly going—especially in some of the Highland counties—that it is unnecessary that it should be obligatory upon the education authorities to have a general meeting every month. We propose that the education authorities shall meet at such times as are necessary, but that there shall be at least one meeting in each quarter. We are not impairing their authority to meet. We say that if you do not desire to meet oftener it will be enough to meet once a quarter. In some districts there is considerable expense for travelling, the payment of expenses and lost time. This Clause, which is supported by the Association of Education Authorities in Scotland, deserves, I think, the support of the House.
As to Clause 3, there has been some considerable discussion on the matter. It was moved in the House of Lords by the Duke of Atholl and accepted by the Secretary for Scotland. It was moved on behalf of the education authorities, who were in its favour. The Secretary for Scotland did
say that if it was not non-contentious, and if serious opposition manifested itself in this House, the position would require to be re-considered. Serious opposition has manifested itself, Members of different parties taking the view that this provision is not desirable. Certain Members have put down an Amendment to reject the Bill on Second Reading. Others have expressed a strong view that nothing shall be done in the way of amendment until there is further consideration. It was obvious that this Bill could not be got through as a non-contentious Measure if this Clause were adhered to. Therefore I propose to delete this Clause when the Bill goes to Committee. I think myself that it is unfortunate that opposition has manifested itself so strongly. There is no doubt that under the Act of 1918 the position as between the local education authorities and the school management committees, which have the charge of secondary schools, has been rather ambiguous. There has been a certain conflict of authority, and the education authorities of Scotland have desired that this should be amended, and that it should not be possible for a school management committee having charge of a secondary school to conflict with the education authority. There has been difficulty and conflict in a number of counties. I think it is a pity that the House did not see its way to accept the Clause, but, in view of the strong opposition manifested from different quarters of the House, it was quite obvious that the Bill could not be carried through if we insisted on retaining the Clause.
As regards Clause 4, it has been possible under the law up to now for education authorities to provide travelling facilities for pupils where it seemed advisable. In order to give better education facilities, they could either convey the pupils to school, or provide travelling facilities or board and lodging. These facilities could only be given after inquiry into the circumstances of the parents. We propose under this Clause that after the Scottish Education Department are satisfied, when the matter has been brought before them by an education authority, that the provision of such travelling facilities would involve less cost in a particular year than the provision of a new school, they shall be entitled to afford these facilities to
parents without inquiry as to whether the financial circumstances of the parents are such as to make it absolutely necessary. It is felt that if a country school is closed, or if one has not been built, and the children have to travel some distance, it is right that the cost of conveyance should be borne by the authority.
The last Clause will be found to provide very fully for all cases of children who are either epileptic, crippled, or defective in the sense of being unable to benefit by instruction at an ordinary school, and also for those children who it is advisable should attend open-air schools. I confidently recommend this useful little Bill to the consideration of the House.

Captain BENN: I do not want to detain the House, but I must make this observation, that it is not really respectful to the Scottish representatives in this House that a Bill of this kind should be taken at 3.30 in the morning. It is an important, though a small, Bill, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he can give us a pledge that the remaining stages of the Bill, so far as taken in the House, will be taken at some reasonable hour, and not in the early morning.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The Bill will go to Scottish Grand Committee, where hon. Members will have a full opportunity to discuss it.

Captain BENN: My second observation is that the Solicitor-General, in moving the deletion of Clause 3, will, no doubt, give an opportunity for an expression of views on both sides. I have had representations on both sides as regards the merits of that Clause. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assure us that the Third Reading will be taken at a decent hour, and not at the end of a long Sitting, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I rather regret the haste with which the Solicitor-General for Scotland has withdrawn Clause 3. I think there are arguments for and against it. My own view is that the bulk of the arguments are in favour of the Clause, but I certainly would say that we might use it as a bargaining power. The Solicitor-General might get this Clause through yet if he were to give some concessions in other directions to the school management committees. That
is the crux of the question. The school management committees in Scotland feel that this Bill is simply another attempt to whittle away their already very small powers, and if the Solicitor-General could add to their powers in directions in which it is perfectly safe, and which would add to the efficiency of education in Scotland, I do not think there would be serious trouble about the Clause.
Clause 1 no one objects to, but to Clause 2 I personally take very serious objection. Clause 2 gives power to a county education authority to hold meetings as seldom as once a quarter. What is the use of talking about popular control of education at all if there is only to be a meeting once a quarter? Who is going to run education in the intervening period? It is going to be the executive officer. As a matter of fact, he is very largely doing it now with monthly meetings.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They can meet as often as they like.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, but the Act of 1918 compels them to meet about 10 times a year, and the purpose of this Clause is to compel them to meet only four times a year. Who is behind that? The executive officers. I have been on an education authority, and I know all about it. Why is this Clause put in here?

Mr. BLUNDELL: In Lancashire they meet only four times a year.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That shows how backward England is. Up to 1918 we took some pride in our education. We object entirely to the administration of education being taken away from the people and handed over, so far as possible, to a group of people called executive officers. What will happen in Argyllshire? They are to meet once in three months. Who is to control education in the intervening period? Emergencies arise, teachers have to be appointed. Who will appoint them? The executive officer. Bursars are to be selected. Who will select them? The education officer. There is nobody else. Every emergency question will be settled by the executive officer. Then when your education authority meets, what happen? The members are scattered all over Argyllshire. It takes some of them three days to get to the meeting and three
days to get home. They can only afford to sit for a couple of hours. The executive officer now has all the business cut and dry. There is no more control over the administration of education in Argyllshire by the education authority than over the man in the moon. The administration of education in Scotland has been more or less on a democratic basis for a hundred years and more. Now you propose to withdraw that faint trace of it by doing away with the monthly meetings. Whatever party is in power, whether Conservative, Liberal, Labour or Coalition, ought to make it the business of the Government of the day to encourage as many citizens as possible to take an interest in local administration, to take a pride in the administration of education. The last thing you should do is to take away the administration of your education from the citizens themselves and hand it over to a bureaucracy who are divorced from the people of Scotland and over whom the people of Scotland have little or no control. What control have they now? You have a triennial election to your education authority. Who can stand as a representative of a local area for the local authority of the county? Only gentlemen of the leisured class or paid officials of the trade unions. Who else can afford to go 50 miles to a meeting? You are gradually taking away the opportunities of the citizens to interest themselves in the administration of education because of the fact that the circle of possible candidates in every area is steadily becoming smaller. At the last election there were areas in which you could not get candidates at all of any party. The result has been that the administration of education has ceased to be a popular function. You have the school-managing committees, the greatest farce without exception, the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the democracy of Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does this arise in this Bill?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: In Clause 2?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not exactly, but it is the effect of Clause 2, which proposes that there shall be only four meetings of an education authority every year. I am submitting arguments to show how
this House should not give them powers only to hold four meetings a year, and I am meeting a possible argument put up by people on the other side who will say that while they are only meeting four times a year, the school education committees are functioning in the local areas. I hope I am in order in showing they are powerless and useless.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You have reduced us to the level of Englishmen.

Mr. JOHNSTON: You have stripped them of their powers, and there is no man with any sense of self respect who would sit on one of these dummy school managing committees. Clause 3 seeks to limit the powers of school managing committees in the secondary schools. Have the Government decided to withdraw it altogether, or is it to be argued out in Committee upstairs? If it is to be discussed upstairs, I am certain there will be a considerable body of opinion among the Scottish Members of all parties—for we are anxious not to make it a party matter, but to do the most we can for the education of our children—who, if the Government do not harden their hearts like Pharoah and say they cannot go back on their decision and are not prepared to have any discussion at all, are agreeable to that Clause going through, always provided you increase the powers of the school managing committees, make them self-respecting units, give them some responsible work to do and maintain in Scotland a democratic and a local interest in the administration of education.
Clause 4 is a very innocent Clause, and I trust there will be no objection taken to that from any quarter of the House. If, for example, a county education authority decides to close a school in an area, it may be a very bad business. They may be closing it when they ought not to close it, but when they do it is grossly unfair to say to the parents of the children: "Although you have only two pounds ten shillings a week, you shall be compelled to pay the travelling expenses of your children to school eight or fourteen miles away." It is a gross injustice, and I trust that the Clause will go through unanimously. I hope there will be no factious criticism, but I would impress upon the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he must face the fact that there is grave initiation in Scotland that education
authorities are fast becoming a bureaucracy. We all agree in limiting the powers of these bureaucrats, and we think it is good and proper business from an educational point of view that you should give school management committees power even to recommend bursars to the county education committee. To-day the school management committee have not even power to recommend a child of promise for a bursary. This is settled by county gentlemen a hundred miles away, not one of whom know the least thing about children in particular local areas. There are a number of things that you could give the school management committee to do, and I trust that before this Bill goes to the Committee stage the Solicitor-General will do something to make it of some use in Scotland, and allow that country to retain some pride in education and some democratic control over the education of Scottish children. In these difficult economic times, we should have before us the ideals which our forefathers had for giving our children the best education.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is obvious that a number of Members wish to speak on the Bill, and I think we should give another day to it, so that Members who desire to speak may have an opportunity of doing so.

Mr. WESTWOOD: There are several Members here who stayed all night, and I appeal to the Solicitor-General that he should at least allow the exact position to be placed before the House. I am satisfied that if the position is understood by those who are making the opposition, that opposition will be withdrawn.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: There will be an opportunity of replying on a further occasion. It seems to me that at this time of the morning it is undesirable to continue the discussion on a Bill in which great interest is being displayed.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an indication when the adjourned Debate will take place, and if it will be at a reasonable time of the day?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: We hape to take the adjourned Debate on the Bill on Friday.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Might I put it to the Solicitor-General that certain other business is to be taken on Friday, which will again put this Bill into the position of a second or third Order, and there may be even less time to discuss the matter on Friday. A considerable number of Members are waiting and anxious to discuss this Bill, and I think the representative of the Scottish Office who replies, should allow a discussion to take place. As has been pointed out, the position of education authorities ought to be put in the House this morning before we adjourn the discussion of this Bill, and I hope the Solicitor-General or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will assent to it.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Might I urge the Solicitor-General to withdraw the idea of separating without discussing the Bill, particularly as to whether Clause 3 ought to be withdrawn, because it would be taking away the last shred of democracy?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, we must not discuss the merits.

Mr. BROWN: If we could get an assurance that this will be discussed fully, I do not mind.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I think it is somewhat discourteous to those Members who have awaited this Debate for hours that the adjournment should be moved at this stage. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland and those who have charge of the business of the House had realised that there would not be sufficient time to discuss this matter fully at this particular time, surely they might have had the courtesy rather to have allowed this Bill to be debated at a later stage instead of entering upon the Debate here and now and ending it in this unsatisfactory way. I should have liked a further statement from the Solicitor-General for Scotland as to why there is to be a withdrawal from the Bill at this stage of one of the Clauses in which Members are specially interested. I hope I am in order in suggesting that if there is any arrangement for continuing the Debate on this matter we should have a very definite assurance that we are not again to be put in the position we are at the present moment, and that we shall be informed when it will suit to have this matter dis-
cussed. In view of the statement made that this Bill is going to the Scottish Grand Committee, I would urge that there should be a full opportunity of discussing the Clause there. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not say at this stage that he is going to withdraw any particular Clause. He should allow the Grand Committee to debate the various points of this Clause. I cannot understand the Government allowing this Amendment to be inserted in the House of Lords, if they have not considered and approved it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member must not debate the point whether the Clause stand part of the Bill or not.

Mr. MILLAR: I do not pursue the argument further than that, if this question is to be adjourned, we should have a very definite undertaking that the Bill will be taken at a fixed time.

Mr. WESTWOOD: On the suggestion that we are now to adjourn it requires something more that the claim put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar). This is an important question from the Scottish administration point of view, and we are entitled, if the House is to adjourn now, to have a guarantee from the Government that it shall be taken as the first Order. I am a member of the executive of the Scottish Authority and I am entitled to express my view with authority in this House. It is such a vital question affecting the lives of our children. We have been waiting here, but the opponents of the Bill have gone. Therefore, I do hope we are going to get a guarantee that this question will be the first Order.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to draw attention to what happened yesterday at the opening of business. When the Leader of the Opposition asked what arrangements were to be made, we got a full promise that this education business for Scotland was to be taken. The ordinary Eleven o'Clock Rule was suspended, and it seems to me that the Government have got what they wanted under the suspension of the Rule; they were quite prepared to dupe Scotland once again. I want to protest against Scottish questions always being relegated to some unearthly hour for dis-
cussion. If the Government cannot arrange the business better, and if Scotland is always to be relegated to some unearthly hour after waiting all night, it is not going to lead to the friendly feeling that should exist in the House of Commons. I am not using any warning or giving out any threats, but, knowing my fellow-countrymen as I do, this kind of conduct is not going to meet with success in the House of Commons. I hope now that the House will go on with the business, or, by God, you will know about it! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. SHORT: We ought to have a statement from the Solicitor-General as to the point raised, or we shall be compelled to oppose the Adjournment if it be persisted in. The Bill is introduced very shortly with no complete statement of the provisions and following a speech by one or two Members we get the Adjournment removed. This is not the way in which the House ought to be treated. In my opinion it is an act of gross discourtesy to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It most certainly is. Hon. Members may want to get to bed. I have wanted to go to bed for some considerable time, but having got to this hour of the morning I am prepared to stop until this afternoon to transact the business. If hon. Members are not prepared to do that they must not be surprised if we stand in the way. I have been prevented from going home already and that is one reason I am here. This Bill is vitally important. It affects the education of the working class of Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now debate the merits of the Bill.

Mr. SHORT: I will certainly follow your ruling, but I persist in my request for some statement from the Solicitor-General as to whether this Bill is to be taken at a reasonable time, and if it is to be the first Order of the day. Are we to have the opportunity of a full Debate on the provisions of the Bill? I am not satisfied that this Bill should be taken on a Friday. This is the kind of Bill that ought not to be relegated to a Friday. The Bill has very important provisions, and it ought to be given a proper place in the procedure of the House which will enable us to discuss it at a reasonable time and under proper conditions.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: I Should be very sorry to indulge in any charge of discourtesy, but I do think there has been some mismanagement of the business. I would point out that several of those who put down their names to an Amendment for the rejection of this Measure have left the House because of the understanding given by the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister that Clause 3 was to be withdrawn. If it had been known that possibly Clause 3 was to be retained, they would have remained. This Clause is the crux of the whole question. Therefore, unless the Solicitor-General, speaking for the Government, can give an undertaking that there will be full opportunity for the discussion of this matter in the House, apart from the Committee, then I do think that Scotland will have real cause for complaint. I would ask him not to give a hasty decision unless it is a decision in accordance with the request made to him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) expressed a strong view against the House being asked to conclude the Second Reading of this Bill at this hour of the morning, and I thought, in view of his appeal and in view of the fact that a number of Members who had taken an interest in this matter were no longer in the House, that I was best meeting the desires and wishes of my Scottish colleagues in not asking them to continue this discussion at this hour of the morning.
4.0 A.M.
I fully appreciate the point of my hon. Friend who wishes to put before the House the views of the education authorities of Scotland. I think it is important he should have an opportunity to state these views. We will give full opportunity for the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading. As regards what my hon. Friend for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) said, I stated that we propose to move the deletion of this Clause. We were in favour of this Clause, but, owing to the strong objection made to it in the House and owing to the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland in another place that if the matter became contentious, this Bill being non-contentious, we decided we should not adhere to it. I have stated my position earlier in the
evening. There is not the slightest occasion for the smallest doubt. There is no desire to treat the Scottish Members with scant courtesy. They will be given full opportunity to discuss this Measure on Second Reading. It was only because my hon. Friend made a strong appeal not to force this matter through at this hour of the morning, as so many people were interested and so many Members wished to speak in this House, that I desired to meet the wishes of my Scottish colleagues.

Captain BENN: What does the Solicitor-General mean by a full opportunity? Does it mean the first Order, or giving it a place that on Friday will curtail the Debate by the operation of the Four o'Clock Rule?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I would suggest that Friday is not a convenient day for Scottish Members who wish to get home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have as good a right to get home as you. We have waited patiently for this Bill, and we do not think that education in Scotland is a party question. There are things peculiar to Scotland, and education is one. We want what will be satisfactory. Personally I would rather go on with the Bill this morning than on Friday, unless there is a promise that we will get it early on Friday.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I cannot guarantee an exactly definite hour, but we shall give hon. Member an absolutely full opportunity for discussion. I think those Members who desire to speak will have an opportunity of expressing their views.

Mr. SHORT: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken.

Mr. SHORT: I would like to ask a question. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury make arrangements, through the usual channels, for this Bill to be taken?

Colonel LESLIE WILSON: It is not a question for consultation through the usual channels. I will do my best to implement the undertaking given by my hon. Friend.

Mr. EDE: Speaking for a considerable number of Members on these benches whose homes are in the suburbs, after the clock passes half-past eleven I have no further train and I cannot get one until 5.18. I know there are a considerable number of Members in a similar position. We have to rely upon railway transport, and when the House sits late, as it has done upon several occasions recently, we have to make a choice between lodging in a hotel and walking about the streets and becoming liable to be arrested by the police for wandering, until five o'clock in the morning. I do think that greater consideration might be shown to Members in fixing the business so that if we have a night sitting we really should have one.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 29.

Division No. 297.]
AYES.
[4.8 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Houfton, John Plowright


Banks, Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Becker, Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Blundell, F. N.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Flanagan, W. H.
Lort-Williams, J.


Bruford, R.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lougher, L.


Bruton, Sir James
Furness, G. J.
Lumley, L. R.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Manville, Edward


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Garland, C. S.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Clayton, G. C.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Nall, Major Joseph


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Halstead, Major D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cope, Major William
Hawke, John Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pease, William Edwin


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Peto, Basil E.
Shepperson, E. W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Privett, F. J.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Wallace, Captain E.


Raine, W.
Skelton, A. N.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanley, Lord
Wise, Frederick


Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, William (Bolton)
Skyes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hardie, George D.
Newbold, J. T. W.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Potts, John S.


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tout, W. J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Westwood J.


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.



Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Entee, V. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fairbairn, R. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Thomas


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Millar, J. D.
Johnston.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL WORKS) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Four o'Clock a.m.